Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COUNTY OF CLEVELAND BILL [Lords]

Considered: to he read the Third Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Industrial Knowledge (Security)

Mr. Neil Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress his Department has made in providing for the secure storage of industrial knowledge in the event of war.

The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): The secure storage of industrial knowledge is a matter for the companies possessing it.

Mr. Thorne: As the Government consider it prudent to spend over £17,000 million a year on defence, would it not be advisable seriously to consider the need to preserve industrial knowledge so that if the worst were to happen we would have something to fall back on, and not have to rely on other countries which are taking these precautions to preserve this knowledge for us?

Mr. Pattie: It rather depends on what my hon. Friend means by "industrial knowledge". The House is aware that an inter-departmental study led by my Department is currently under way to identify the military and civil needs for industrial products in times of crisis and industry's ability to meet them. It may be that my hon. Friend has that in mind, in which case I can tell him that the study is currently in train.

Mr. James Lamond: If the worst were to happen, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) said, surely that would mean the complete annihilation not only of the industrial buildings but of the people of this country? There would be little need, if any, for industrial knowledge following that.

Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman is taking a particular view of certain future events. It is perfectly in order for my hon. Friend to ask his question to see whether contingencies are being worked on.

Steel Industry

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the likely reduction in the capacity of the steel industry in the United Kingdom

during 1987 and 1988; and what measures he plans to adopt to meet European Economic Community proposals during or after 1989.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): I have made no such estimates. There are no European Community proposals concerning steel capacity for 1989 or beyond.

Mr. Hardy: Has not Britain borne, since 1979, a most unfair share of the cuts in Community steel capacity while we have watched other member states pursuing policies and making arrangements which are clearly unfair? Does he accept that there is an obligation that Britain shall maintain its present capacity in steel and special steels industries, and will he offer the House a firm commitment that the Government accept that obligation?

Mr. Channon: I agree with part of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Any reductions that ever took place would have to be within the context of statements that have been made within the framework of a strategy agreed with the Government and announced in August 1985.

Mr. Holt: Is not the way to increase and maintain our share of steel capacity the way that it is being done in Redcar and Skinningrove, in my constituency, where there is record output? Would that not be much helped by proceeding with the Channel tunnel, which will bring work to the steel industry for many years ahead?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on both those points.

Mr. Crowther: Is the Secretary of State aware that in recent weeks a study by Anthony Bird Associates came to the conclusion that demand for steel in Europe is likely to increase up to 1990 at least? Another study by the American analyst Payne Webber reached the conclusion that the BSC is now producing the cheapest steel in Europe. In view of that, would not further capacity cuts in Britain be nonsense? Is A not in our interest for the quota system to be ended so that British industry can use its competitive strength?

Mr. Channon: I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman's last point, but I agree that the British Steel Corporation is highly competitive. As I said, any future reductions must be within the framework of that strategy.

Mr. Hickmet: Is not the BSC the most profitable steel business in Europe? In that context, if there have to be capacity cuts, to pursue the point made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), are we not the best placed in Europe to compete against the European steel producers? Accordingly, we should not go along the lines of the Eurofer proposals. Let us do away with quotas and price restraints. We are more competitive than the European steel producers and we can beat the pants off them. Why should we cut capacity when the Italian, French and German industries are almost bankrupt and are inefficient?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend makes many important points. The Eurofer proposals have not yet been presented in their final form. There is an advantage to the United Kingdom having as stable a market as possible, and I agree with my hon. Friend about the great success of the BSC over the past years. I am grateful for his robust support.

Mr. Williams: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that it is no reassurance for him to say that anything done will be done within the context of the strategy already agreed, because within that we have Ravenscraig, which has a guarantee that runs out next year? Therefore, if there were to be cuts on the scale that is envisaged, Ravenscraig would be vulnerable. Will he give us an assurance here and now, so that it can be understood in Brussels, that if figures of the magnitude being talked about in the press and in Brussels come forward, they will have to be without any co-operation from this country and we shall not accept any share of them?

Mr. Channon: I have already tried to explain that Eurofer has not yet put forward proposals. It has been invited to submit more detailed proposals by the beginning of March, in co-operation with the independent producers, as appropriate. Any contribution that the BSC has to make would have to be consistent with the present strategy, and it cannot prejudice any subsequent strategy agreed between it and the Government.

Caterpillar Co., Uddingston

Mr. Fatchett: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on what action the Government propose to take as a result of the announcement of the proposed closure of the Caterpillar factory at Uddingston.

Mr. Stan Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department was informed about the proposed closure of the Caterpillar factory in Scotland.

Mr. Wareing: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when any representative of his Department last met any representative of the Caterpillar Co. Ltd. to discuss the future of the company.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Giles Shaw): My Department was informed on 13 January. I attended the meeting between my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the president of Caterpillar on 20 January. DTI officials, together with Scottish Office officials, last met senior representatives of the company on 2 February. While I greatly regret the decision, and the manner in which it was taken, it is ultimately a commercial issue for the company to resolve. I have no plans at present for further discussions with Caterpillar, but in the time available before the planned closure takes place the possibilities for maintaining manufacturing operations and employment at Uddingston will be urgently explored. To this end, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has put in hand a study of the facility and its marketability.

Mr. Fatchett: While it is possible to understand the desire of Trade and Industry Ministers to hide behind the embarrassment of the Secretary of State for Scotland, is it not about time that the Minister did something in these circumstances and took some action? Is this another case of the Department washing its hands of British manufacturing industry, and a further sign of the Government's planned retreat from manufacture?

Mr. Shaw: No, Sir. I robustly deny those accusations. I make it clear that we stand solidly behind the actions of

my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, in seeking to persuade the company to review and reverse its decision. It is not just my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who has written to the Caterpillar company on this issue, seeking a review of the decision. As the hon. Gentleman fully understands, at the end of the day the company has to arrive at a decision in relation to its assets.

Mr. Thorne: What public funds were put into this company and how were they used?

Mr. Shaw: There is another question on the Order Paper which relates to that. The hon. Member will be aware that when public funds are invested in a company and when closure takes place, rules apply for the recovery of such funds as are then extant.

Mr. Wareing: Is the Minister aware that it is less than four months since the executive vice-president of Caterpillar promised that there would be a £1 billion funding of schemes at all of the company's 30 sites throughout the world, and that that included a £62 million investment at Uddington? Is it not an absolute shambles when the Government are prepared to be a doormat for the Americans and to resign their public responsibility? Are we now to see all such machinery imported into this country? Do the Government not have a responsibility, if only for the balance of payments implications?

Mr. Shaw: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I must remind him that there is massive investment in Britain by American companies to provide jobs in most important parts of our manufacturing industry. In this case the company took a decision to make the investment in good faith last Sepetember and then apparently reviewed again its worldwide capacity. That is what gave rise to a change in the decision that the company announced. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland rightly took the view that the company's review of capacity was hardly compatible with the decision about the investment. I wholly share that view.

Sir Hector Monro: In this serious situation created by Caterpillar, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, proportionately, some areas where there are factories supplying major components to Caterpillar are equally severely hit? Will he extend the area of the inquiry by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to those areas as well?

Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that observation, and I shall certainly pass it to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. James Hamilton: As the Minister has correctly said, he met the president of Caterpillar in London about the proposed closure. Since that meeting has he made any overtures to the Americans, because there is no possible chance of anything happening if he does business with the local management? Their jobs are also on the line. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that at this stage the Government should try every possible way to get a meeting with the Americans to try to persuade them to keep the factory open in the interests of the 1,221 workers who are employed there?

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in response to the pressure applied by the Secretary of State for Scotland there was a meeting with the president and a team from Peoria who came over here for these discussions. He will be further aware that as a result of that meeting the company was asked to review and reverse its decision. That request was backed up by a letter from the Prime Minister. The company reviewed the matter but, unfortunately, it decided to confirm the decision. As far as I am aware, no further meetings are planned at the sort of level to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that Caterpillar has behaved dishonourably and deplorably, first in accepting a generous offer of financial support for its major investment programme and, secondly, in abruptly cancelling the programme and announcing the closure of the plant? Bearing in mind that no Government can oblige a multinational company to remain in the United Kingdom, will my hon. Friend remind the Opposition that Ministers from the Prime Minister down have done all that they possibly can to persuade Caterpillar to change its mind, and that the Government have acted with commendable speed in putting in contingency plans to maintain manufacturing operations and employment at Uddingston?

Mr. Shaw: There is no doubt that my hon. Friend makes an eloquent case, and by raising the matter recently on the Adjournment he demonstrated his commitment to this issue. I can assure him that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Scottish Office and others have played a significant part in trying to reverse the Caterpillar decision. As my hon. Friend says, this is ultimately a matter for the company. Having met, in company with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, representatives of the Caterpillar work force who came to the Ravenscraig plant on Monday, I can quite understand the real anger that they have been evincing.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister not fully understand the utter outrage and lack of comprehension in Scotland about the fact that this factory, which was supposed to have been boosted by a £62 million investment programme and which is already very modern, is now to be closed? Does he not realise that this may well be a consequence of the cut in regional development grant affecting Scotland? Furthermore, as there is now a Scotland-England divide in terms of unemployment, will the Government do something to prevent yet another plug being pulled on the Scottish economy?

Mr. Shaw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's intemperance on these issues, but he will know that much of the last part of his question is a matter not for me but for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. With regard to his first comments, there has been a full discussion of the issues involved in this case and there is no question but that this issue has raised a very real question mark over the extent to which such investments can be guaranteed by those who are making the decision. However, it is a fact that manufacturing industry in this country is subject to major competitive pressures, and certainly the manufacture of heavy equipment such as this is not exempt from those pressures. The review of worldwide capacity has nothing to do with regional grant policy in Scotland.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Minister believe for one moment that an assessment of worldwide capacity changed so dramatically in a matter of weeks? Does he not appreciate that the Caterpillar company has deceived the Government, the unions, the work force and the local management in a wholly calculating and ruthless manner? Surely it is not tolerable for a multinational company to abandon the interests of a work force and community which has given 30 years' service to that company. Does the Minister not understand that only a week or so ago the Secretary of State for Scotland was assuring Scottish Members that the decision was not accepted by the Government, and that only yesterday the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland confirmed that? The hon. Gentleman appears to be taking a different line today. What is the Government's policy, and what action do the Government propose to take in the face of a company which has deliberately and calculatingly deceived them and this country?

Mr. Shaw: I note the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments. I take it that he is making an extremely strong attack upon the way in which the investment was made and the consequences in the light of the decision that the company has taken. I feel that I should warn the right hon. and learned Gentleman about whether those remarks will have a beneficial effect on American investment in Scotland. There are very real issues at stake. The fact is that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland does not believe that the end of the road is nigh. He has not been persuaded of the company's statement that ultimately it has to close. Not many people can be persuaded of that. However, the realism has to be faced. The company has taken that decision, it has been asked to review it, has reviewed it and has confirmed it. In the statement issued by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland he makes it clear that while my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State remains unpersuaded regarding the company's decision to close at Uddingston, it is most important now to use the time available before the planned closure takes place to explore all possibilities for maintaining manufacturing operations and employment at the Uddingston facility. That is the policy being pursued, and it is the correct policy.

Civil Protection

Mr. Gerald Bowden: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to promote the formation of a consultative body consisting of representatives of the trade unions, industry and his Department to co-ordinate the role of industry in civil protection.

Mr. Pattie: No, Sir.

Mr. Bowden: I must confess to being somewhat disappointed with my right hon. Friend's reply. Does he not recognise the importance of the fact that all parties to industry should be prepared for emergencies and should plan for disasters. Against the background of the new responsibility of so many local authorities, is it not right that my hon. Friend's Department should give some lead in those consultations?

Mr. Pattie: What my hon. Friend asks is not to deny that the civil contingencies unit exists and that the Government engage in planning for the sort of eventuality


that he describes. In response to the second part of his question, I should say that information that enables worthwhile civil contingencies plans to be drawn up is not made any easier by the fact that certain local authorities seem to decide that they will not co-operate in the provision of the necessary information.

Rover Group

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the trade unions concerning the recently announced redundancies at Rover.

Mr. Channon: I met a delegation including trade union representatives from Leyland Trucks yesterday, led by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins).

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister not realise that contrary to the announcement made three weeks ago by Mr. Graham Day and the Government that 1,265 staff jobs were to be lost through voluntary redundancy only 300 people have volunteered so far? Does he not realise the anxiety and distress that will be caused to families in Oxford and Birmingham if compulsory redundancies have to be forced through?

Mr. Chanon: Of course I understand that, and the hon. Lady is right to say that those are the facts. However, we are less than four weeks into the 90-day period allowed for responding and the company tells me that it will continue to work hard to achieve the total by voluntary means. I hope that that will be possible. The hon. Lady will be encouraged by the fact that the week before last 500 extra people were taken on at Cowley, so there is good news as well as bad.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am particularly grateful, as are the members of the delegation who came to see him yesterday, for the way in which he received them and heard their representations? Does he recognise that it is a continuing cry of many trade union leaders that the consultation they receive from the top of Leyland vehicles is perhaps not as good as it should be? Therefore, I am grateful to him, on their behalf as well as mine, for the fact that we have been able to arrange a meeting with Graham Day tomorrow, so that the trade unions may put their case to him. Which will be beneficial for future consultations on the future of the company.

Mr. Channon: Consultation is a matter for the company and the unions to resolve under the normal consultation procedures, but I am pleased that a delegation is to be received tomorrow and I am certain that that point will be debated.

Mr. Norris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the evidence of 400 redundancies to be called for among white-collar workers at Cowley, followed by the announcement of 500 new production jobs there, is evidence of a company which is at last coming to terms with its management costs and production effectiveness? Does he agree that that is an encouraging sign for future prospects?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has a point. It has been extremely encouraging to see since Christmas an important improvement in the Rover Group's market share. That is encouraging and bodes well for the future of the company.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: When the Secretary of State next meets the trade unions, will he reaffirm the Government's commitment to sustain the Rover Group as a volume producer on into the future? With that in mind, will he give a clear commitment to support the company's plans to introduce the AR6 Metro replacement, which will be a vital component in retaining the Rover Group as a volume producer?

Mr. Channon: I think that the hon. Gentleman was present last week when I announced the acceptance of the Rover Group's corporate plan in its totality, so I can assure him that I am backing that company. I also answered questions on that detailed point last week. We are doing exactly what the Rover company has asked us.

Mr. Roger King: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the delight and satisfaction of the trade unions within the west midlands area at his statement last week, which gives them the confidence on which to build a successful business in liaison with DAF trucks and as part of the Rover Group?

Mr. Channon: The Government have done everything in their power to help the Rover Group and now it is up to it to win its share in the market place. I see no reason why it should not do so.

Mr. Terry Davis: If the Government and Mr. Graham Day want to improve the quality of Austin Rover vehicles, does it make sense to sack engineering and technical staff?

Mr. Channon: That must be a matter for the company. It must decide on the best commercial prospects for it and the best way to realise them. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to run the company; it is for the management to run it. If he has a detailed point that he wants to raise, perhaps he will be good enough to write to me.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would also be constructive and sympathetic to the original question to point out that in the midlands there are additionally in the private sector 700 jobs available at Jaguar, which is released from the Leyland Group?

Mr. Channon: That is a very good point. I notice that we do not hear so much about Jaguar from the Opposition Benches. I never quite understand why.

Securities and Investments Board

Mr. Cash: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received any representations concerning the Securities and Investments Board's application to be the designated regulatory body for the financial services sector referred to in his answer on 10 February, Official Report, column 165, to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson).

Mr. Hanley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) on 10 February, Official Report, column 165, if he is now in a position to make a statement on progress on his consideration of the Securities and Investments Board's application to be considered as the designated agency for the regulation of the financial services sector.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Howard): My right hon. Friend received the SIB's request for transfer of powers on 10


February. As required by the Financial Services Act, my right hon. Friend has sent to the Director General of Fair Trading a copy of the material submitted by the SIB. My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of letters concerning the SIB's proposals, which will be fully considered. If, after considering the Director General's report and any other points put to him, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the requirements of the Act have been met, he will lay the necessary order as soon as possible.

Mr. Cash: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that important questions on competition arise in relation to these rules? Will he confirm that it is the intention that the smaller bodies, those which do not necessarily come within the more recognised activities but which nevertheless are important, should be maintained and need to have a fair opportunity to get into the financial services sector? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we should do nothing that would in any way discriminate against those bodies and that we should make sure that they have a fair deal together with everybody else?

Mr. Howard: Yes. These are matters which, no doubt, the Director General of Fair Trading will look at in the context of competition. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider his report carefully, paying particular attention to the considerations to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: How does the Minister distinguish between the powers of the Securities and Investments Board, the powers of Department of Trade and Industry inspectors and the powers of the fraud squad? Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman not let the fraud squad go into Guinness to sort it out? Is it that the Government are deliberately trying to duck a full investigation into what is going on in that company?

Mr. Howard: It is difficult to see how this matter arises out of the Securities and Investments Board's proposals. The position on Guinness is that, as soon as it is appropriate for the fraud squad to be involved in criminal aspects of the investigation, it will be.

Mr. Hanley: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree with the article in The Guardian on 9 February to the effect that the SEC's embarrassment over the Boesky affair shows that no matter what form of legal framework one has, and no matter what sort of sophisticated computers one uses, what is needed is not that sort of framework but political will? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Financial Services Act contains that political will? Will he assure the House that the Act will be implemented as quickly as possible?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I can certainly give him that assurance. The article in The Guardian to which he referred was particularly interesting. After an analysis of the differences between our system and the SEC, it concluded:
None of this seems terribly encouraging for advocates in Britain of an SEC.

Mr. Nelson: I welcome the proposal to transfer these powers to the SIB. Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that all the additional powers which were enabled to be transferred to the SIB will, in fact, be transferred and that the SIB will be a watchdog that is able to bite as well as to bark? In particular, following the whingeing of some

of the major banks about how they will be prejudicially affected by the polarisation issues, will my hon. and learned Friend give an assurance, as requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), that the smaller entrants, especially the independent intermediaries, will not be prejudicially affected by any such order?

Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, of course, carefully consider all the applications which have been made by the SIB for the transfer of particular powers in the Act. Of course, my right hon. Friend will have full regard to the interests of the intermediaries, to which my hon. Friend referred, in the light of such considerations as may be drawn to his attention by the Director General of Fair Trading.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister never read the business pages? Against the background of the City scandals which have dominated those pages, does the hon. and learned Gentleman really intend to ask the House to approve the desgination of a board which will not comprise public servants, the only formal status of which is as a private company limited by guarantee, whose only income will be from the City that it is supposed to police, and which will have no powers over the takeover panel or Lloyd's insurance, where the worst scandals have occurred? Why do the Government now insist that trade unions need an independent statutory commission, but say that regulation of the City can be left to self-regulation by their friends there? Why do the Government not accept that the City needs a system of supervision at least as tough as the system that they are imposing on the trade union movement?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that to characterise the system under the Financial Services Act 1986 as self-regulation is a gross misnomer. He knows that a firm and tough statutory framework is provided by the Act. When I invited the hon. Gentleman in the last debate that we had on this matter in the House to identify a single power that resided in the SEC that was not in the possession of the SIB, the only power that he rose to mention was a power that the SEC does not possess.

Research and Development (Departmental Expenditure)

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning spending by his Department on support for research and development in the current year.

Mr. Channon: My Department has received a number of representatives, including from the technology requirements board which was set up to advise me on the development and implementation of policy for industrial research and development.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I know my right hon. Friend will agree that no one underestimates, or should underestimate, the role of research and development. Can he give us any figures today on how current R and D compares with the position five or 10 years ago? Can he also comment on the co-ordination that exists in R and D between his Department of State and others? I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that there can be no more vital a subject for the welfare of the nation.

Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is frequent co-ordination and the very closest collaboration between my Department and other Departments involved in research and development. That collaboration has never been greater than it is at present. With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, my Department's support for R and D has trebled in cash terms and doubled in real terms since 1979. It will further increase from £383 million in the current year to £445 million in 1989–90.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Can the Secretary of State explain why his Department refused to finance research and development into the oil and gas engine industry, especially when that development would lead to the creation of a new manufacturing base in the north of England for the next 50 years? Is he aware that the information that he has been given by his departmental officers is wrong and that, as a consequence of his Department refusing to finance that R and D, the Japanese are willing to finance it provided that the manufacturing base is created in Japan and not in this country? Why does the Minister refuse to meet me on this matter? Why does he refuse to meet my constituents who have an interest in this issue?

Mr. Channon: I think that there is a misunderstanding here. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman feels that we have not offered to meet him. We suggested that when the matters have been clarified—and I have written to the hon. Gentleman and the company about these matters—we shall be delighted to have a meeting at which either one of my hon. Friends or I will discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman will understand that the project to which he has referred must offer exceptional national benefits, and the evidence from boiler and burner manufacturers is now being provided. When that arrives, we shall be delighted to look at the matter again.

Viscount Cranborne: Would not British industry be more likely to produce more saleable goods if the Government encouraged it to do a little more of its own research and development instead of relying purely on Government sources?

Mr. Channon: We need both, and my hon. Friend made a good point when he said that expenditure by industry on research and development is, with many shining exceptions, nevertheless still inadequate. I believe that more should be done.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the Secretary of State take note of the representations that he has received from the west Yorkshire area about the need for more research and development following the rundown of the textile and clothing industry and the mining industry? Will he also take note of the representations that he has received, especially from the Wakefield and Dewsbury travel-to-work area, which covers my constituency, where unemployment is now in the region of 16 per cent.? Will he accept that there is a need for further research and development, and will he act to ensure that there is an industrial base in the area to ensure job opportunities?

Mr. Channon: I shall certainly consider the points that the hon. Gentleman has referred to, and any others that he may care to raise with me. It is common ground on both sides of the House that there should be more expenditure by industry on research and development.

Dr. Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that because of the decline of traditional industries in the Yorkshire and Humberside region there has been a fall of about 35 per cent. in employment in six years, whereas the business expansion scheme seems to have gone to service industries in London and the south-east to the tune of more than 60 per cent.? Will he give an undertaking that his Department will look at the impact of the various schemes on the north and its industries at and particularly the eligibility of Yorkshire and Humberside for the new EEC Comett scheme— the Community action programme for education and training in technology?

Mr. Channon: Of course I shall look at that, as my hon. Friend asks me to do so. I have seen the figures for the amount of money going to the south as opposed to the north. One must also consider what applications have been received. This is a complex matter which we are studying in detail.

Mr. Williams: Does the Secretary of State accept that not only do we have a smaller GDP than Japan, Germany and the United States of America, but that we spend a smaller proportion of it on research and development, with the inevitable and inexorable result that we are slipping further behind in our competitiveness in high technology? Does he also accept that an even more insidious and dangerous consequence is the accelerating brain drain, which is demonstrated by the fact that 20 per cent. of elected fellows of the Royal Society who were educated in Britain are permanently resident abroad?

Mr. Channon: I am extremely surprised that any member of the Labour party dares to talk about the brain drain. The Labour Government's policies of high taxation, which the party promises to introduce, caused the brain drain of the past. If the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) had his way, the brain drain would become a brain flood. That must be common ground.
As for the proportion of national output spent on research and development, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave some specific examples of this in questions last Thursday. It is more complex than the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Takeover Bids (Costs)

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to empower the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to order a company whose takeover bid has been judged to be against the public interest to reimburse any reasonable costs incurred by the company or companies which were the subject of that takeover bid; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion, which will be considered in the work of the Department's present review of law and policy on mergers and restrictive trade practices.

Mr. Bruinvels: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that there has been a substantial increase in the number of takeover bids, both hostile and against the public interest? Does he agree that something must be done to help companies which are fighting hostile bids and which are


cramped in their style in terms of taking on staff or of promoting their products because they must fight back through the national media? I cite especially Allied-Lyons.

Mr. Howard: There has been an increase in contested bids, although they are not necessarily against the public interest. My hon. Friend's point will be taken into account in the context of the review, but it is important not to overlook the advantages that can follow takeovers.

Dr. Godman: Would it not be a good idea to recover some of the costs from the predator? For example, now that the Secretary of State has rejected Ferruzzi's bid for the British Sugar Corporation, why should not that Italian company pay some of the costs of its predatory activities in Britain?

Mr. Howard: This point will be considered in the context of the review. When we talk about proposed takeovers of British companies by foreign companies, we should remember that companies from Britain are frequently engaged in similar activities overseas.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that I have written to him in connection with the future of the Manchester Ship Canal Company and the hostile bid for that company from Highams and Mr. John Whittaker, who in my view are involved in unacceptable commerical practices, not least share splitting, in seeking to overrule the long-established articles of association of the company, which were set down to aid and promote the long-term interests of the small shareholder? Will he treat this matter with great urgency, bearing in mind the fact that Highams has sought an extraordinary general meeting on Friday to oust the directors of the Manchester Ship Canal Company and to impose its own? It has little or no interest in the long-term future of the company as a whole, only in its land and assets.

Mr. Howard: I certainly confirm that my hon. Friend has written to me on this matter. Indeed, I hope that by now he has received my reply. I am happy to assure him that the matter is the subject of urgent consideration in my Department.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Minister not yet fully understand that the spate of takeovers that have been permitted in recent months and years has led to chronic "short-termitis" in British industry, which means that companies will not make long-term commitments to capital development, research and development or education and training? Despite all this evidence, why do the Government stick to only one criterion— that of competition? Why do we have to keep reviewing policy? Should it not simply be changed to take account of the industrial realities of Britain today?

Mr. Howard: I do not accept that the consequences of takeovers are as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. It is important not to overlook the beneficial consequences that can flow from takeovers, which can frequently lead to sleepy management being given a shake-up and the assets of the target company being used more productively than would otherwise be the case. Nor is it correct to say that competition is the only criterion on which references are made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. However, these matters are under review and all aspects are being considered in the context of that review.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that a hostile takeover that concludes in an unsatisfactory manner, which may be unlawful and against the rules of the takeover panel, must eventually, if it damages the locality, be against the public interest? Is that not an area that is new to us and one that we must examine carefully?

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend that these matters must be carefully examined, but I am not certain that I can accept his proposition that such a situation will always necessarily be against the public interest.

Counter Trade Agreements

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his Department's policy towards counter trade agreements with developing nations.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): The Government's policy is to support the further development of an open cash-based multilateral trading system. However, counter trade is a requirement in certain markets and I hope that British exporters will consider carefully the commercial opportunities that exist.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that some Third world countries are obliged to resort to counter trade because they are starved of hard currency? What steps will the Government take against the failure of the Baker proposals, the burgeoning problems of international debt and the lack of financial liquidity in the Third world to promote the open, multilateral cash-based system that he seeks to achieve?

Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that those offers are most prevalent in Third world, developing countries that are suffering from currency difficulties. My Department offers advice, information and general guidance. We publish an annual guide to counter trade and we also have a list of specialist counter traders to whom the inquirer can refer for further information.

Mr. Robin Cook: Can the Minister confirm that the developing countries are among the few nations with which we have a healthy trade surplus? Will he also confirm that this month's figures show that our deficit with the European Community trebled last year and that our deficit with Japan increased by one fifth? Does his Department have any policy to counter our ballooning trade gap, other than praying that the Prime Minister calls a general election as soon as possible?

Mr. Clark: An election fever-type general question does not sit happily with a detailed, thoughtful, constructive question about counter trade. Were it possible for us to correct some of the imbalances in our internal trade with the European Community by recourse to counter trade, no one would be happier than me.

Mr. Gow: Will my hon. Friend reaffirm the Government's commitment to a policy of free trade? What journeys does my hon. Friend have it in mind to make in these coming months to promote the Government's excellent trade record and enhance his own high reputation?

Mr. Clark: Certainly, on whatever journeys I make, I am always keen to explore all trading opportunities,


especially those in the area of counter trade. That is a growing sector and one in which, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, the United Kingdom has a favourable balance.

Caterpillar Company Ltd., Uddingston

Mr. Maxton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been received by the Caterpillar Company Ltd. in Government support since it was established.

Mr. Giles Shaw: It is not customary to provide details of the Department's grants to individual companies beyond the limited information published in "British Business on Regional Development Grants" and certain support schemes under the Industrial Development Act 1982 and its predecessor. This shows that, since 1975, individual direct payments to the Caterpillar Company of sums of over £25,000 of regional development grant have totalled £4·7 million. Offers of selective financial assistance to Caterpillar UK under sections 7 and 8 of the Act, in respect of which some payment has been made, amount to £3 million for investment at Glasgow and Leicester.

Mr. Maxton: In view of the figures and the humiliating defeat for the Secretary of State for Scotland in this matter, what action does the Minister intend to take to try to get some of that money back from Caterpillar? How will he spend that money to ensure that the tragic loss of jobs in Scotland is at least alleviated in some way?

Mr. Shaw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's fair supplementary question. If the company proceeds with its closure, the recovery of earlier grant in respect of the Glasgow plant is a matter for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be responsible. There are rules regarding repayments, as I said in response to an earlier question. They will indeed be followed.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The House will be reassured by what my hon. Friend has said. In the light of the serious economic consequences for the area if the regrettable closure decision is confirmed, will his Department, with the Scottish Office, sympathetically and urgently review any applications for selective financial assistance for the area that have been turned down in the past few months?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend will be aware that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is looking urgently at the marketability of the Caterpillar site for the continuation of manufacturing and employment. Obviously, if opportunities attract regional grant I have no doubt that they will be most urgently considered.

Mr. Maclennan: Why were the Government so completely out of touch with the corporate thinking of a company which is so heavily assisted by the Government? Will the Minister comment on the disturbing statements that were made yesterday by the chairman of the company about the future of the Leicestershire plant?

Mr. Shaw: I do not understand the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Had he been present earlier when the matter was fully discussed, he may have gained the information that he seeks. If I have misunderstood him, I know that he will write a pertinent letter to me on the issue.
I can confirm that information has been sought and received from the chairman of Caterpillar, which confirms

that the commitment to the Leicestershire plant is total. The remarks reported in yesterday's edition of the Financial Times about the supposed devaluation of the dollar were made off-the-cuff in reply to a hypothetical question in Las Vegas. It does not appear to me that currency speculation in Las Vegas is always a true record of what takes place.

Manufacturing Output

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the most recent figure for output in manufacturing industry; and what was the comparable figure for the same month seven years ago.

Mr. Pattie: The hon. Member will appreciate that monthly data can be erratic. However, since the trough of the recession in 1981 manufacturing output has increased by 14 per cent. to reach a level of 106·0 in December 1986, based on 1980 equal to 100. This was some 5 per cent. lower than the level of output in December 1979. Productivity, however, is now 31 per cent. higher than the 1979 figure.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the present figure and that for seven years ago show that manufacturing industry has made satisfactory progress in the past seven years?

Mr. Pattie: The recent trends show that it is doing so. For the past eight months up to and including December 1986 we have seen consecutive growth in each month in manufacturing output. Indeed, if the forecast in the autumn statement of 4 per cent. growth, which has been confirmed as a forecast by many outside observers, is achieved in 1987 it will be the best year for manufacturing output and growth since 1973.

Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister agree that he should compare the figure with that of 1979? Is not productivity still below that year's figure? Indeed, if we had an economic recovery, we could not meet the output needed in the steel industry and other basic industries. Is it not once more a case of measuring from a small base, the decline of which must be attributed to the Government?

Mr. Pattie: I said in my first answer, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman heard, that the figures I gave were 5 per cent. lower than the level of output in December 1979. It is somewhat disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that what happened in the 18-month period from May 1979 was anything other than the consequence of the Labour Government.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the companies which have come through the trauma of the recession are now more competitive and have better prospects than before? In particular, the companies which have kept themselves to the forefront of technology have prospered. In Lincoln, in the past seven years Marconi has doubled its employment and has more than doubled the value of its output.

Mr. Pattie: There are many examples, like those that my hon. Friend adduced. We can all express satisfaction about GEC's record in Lincoln.

Airbus Project

Mr. Allen Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about Government support for the Airbus project.

Mr. Channon: My Department has received representations about the provision of Government support for the Airbus A330/A340 project from a number of hon. Members, from trades union representatives and from others with an interest in these projects, including Airbus Industrie and British Aerospace.

Mr. Adams: Following the successful launch last week of the A320, will the Secretary of State assure the House of the Government's continuing financial support for the A330 and the A340? Will he also assure the House that the Government will continue to resist American pressure—pressure that seems to be absolutely determined to destroy, once and for all, the British aircraft industry?

Mr. Channon: Yes, on the latter point I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology met American trade officials on 2 February and made that absolutely clear. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I think the House knows that the Government are considering an application at this time, and I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's views in mind.

Mr. Sackville: Does my right hon. Friend agree that among the many reasons why the A330 and the A340 should be supported is the fact that they will end the Boeing monopoly on the long-haul airliner market, a monopoly that Boeing abused, to the detriment of the aerospace industry in Britain and in Europe?

Mr. Channon: I shall certainly bear that point of view in mind, too.

Mr. Pike: In dealing with the application this time, will the Secretary of State not be quite so slow as the Government were about the Airbus 320, which is already proving to be such a major success? The A330 and the A340 are vital to the aerospace industries in this country. The whole country is waiting for a favourable decision—for the Government to say yes and to allow British Aerospace and all the other companies to go ahead.

Mr. Channon: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall reach a decision within a reasonable time scale. This is a very big decision. It involves a great deal of money. The taxpayers' interests are involved. It is very important that it should be considered very carefully, but there will be no undue delay.

Mr. Warren: Having visited Airbus in Toulouse yesterday, may I tell my right hon. Friend that a decision by Her Majesty's Government is long overdue and that the whole project is very vulnerable, unless the British Government go ahead? If they do not, the Germans and the French will not pursue either of those projects. Secondly, will my right hon. Friend bring into his consideration the fact that the British equipment industry is not at the moment included in the proposals and that it looks forward to some initiative from Her Majesty's Government to support it?

Mr. Channon: I am sorry to have to disagree with my hon. Friend, but the decision is not overdue. We are acting at the moment in parallel with the decision-making

timetables of the French and German Governments and with the collaboration of Airbus Industrie and its partners towards fulfilling the desired conditions for the launch. The A340 specification was changed as recently as December, so I do not think that there has been any undue delay.

Mr. Terry Davis: Given that the uncertainty is causing some damage to the prospects, and given also that the Government are bound to support Airbus and British Aerospace, why will the Secretary of State not stop dithering and announce a decision?

Mr. Channon: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. It is causing no damaging uncertainty at all. There is no uncertainty; there is no damage. I am extremely surprised that the House should not wish me to consider carefully an application for the spending of several hundred million pounds of taxpayers' money. It seems to me to be only right that the matter should be very carefully considered. That is what we shall do. We shall announce the Government's decision within a reasonable time.

Statutory Auditors (Education and Training)

Mr. Hirst: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to announce his response to the representations which he has received on his Department's consultative document on the European Community's eighth directive.

Mr. Howard: I shall make an announcement as soon as possible. My hon. Friend will appreciate, though, that it may take some time to complete our analysis of the many responses to the consultative document and carry out such further consultations with the accountancy profession and other representative bodies as may he desirable before decisions on future policy can be taken.

Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. However, will he confirm that the overwhelming consensus of the representations that he has received through his Department's consultation paper have confirmed that there should not be a rotation of auditors and, moreover, that there should not he any ban on accounting firms being able to offer a range of professional services to their clients?

Mr. Howard: As the analysis is not yet complete, I am not sure that I can accede to my hon. Friend's question in quite the terms that he puts it. However, I can tell him that the suggestions to which he has referred have proved to be somewhat less than universally popular.

North of England (Economic and Industrial Expansion)

Mr. Lawler: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are being taken by the Government to foster economic growth and industrial expansion in the north of England.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Recognising its problems, we redesignated many parts of the north of England as assisted areas following the 1984 review of regional industrial policy. Taking the north as the north-east, north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside regions, 70 per cent. of its working population are within assisted areas.


Since 1979 firms in the north have benefited from nearly £2 billion of regional assistance, creating or safeguarding around 219,000 jobs.

Mr. Lawler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, which shows that he is only too well aware of the problems in the northern cities. Does he agree that constant talk of the north as a depressed region only perpetuates its negative image? Instead, will he support Bradford's approach, which, through its "Bradford's Bouncing Back" campaign, highlights the positive aspects of economic life in that city?

Mr. Shaw: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is ridiculous that we should, as it were, attempt to paint the north as an area where there are clogs and cloth caps and nothing else. "Bradford's Bouncing Back" is assuredly an exceptionally fine slogan. If Bradford bounces back, Pudsey will prosper too.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Given the catastrophic fall in the real value of manufacturing investment in the north of 41

per cent. since 1979, what is the sense of the 50 per cent. cut over the coming year in the value of regional development grants, especially as they have been halved since 1979? If the Minister will not support the Labour party's proposals for a northern development agency, will he at least listen to the proposals from the unholy alliance of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), who now support, outside the Cabinet, proposals for development agencies which they did not support when they were in the Cabinet'?

Mr. Shaw: I cannot disagree more with the hon. Gentleman. It is a fact that we are engaged in developing a number of agencies which can promote beneficial investment in the regions. As the Northern Development Company is one of those, he will be aware that it is a substantial recipient of Government funds. The budget proposition made by the company is currently under discussion and I hope to make an announcement very soon.

Cancer Screening and AIDS Research

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on health developments in cancer screening and AIDS research.
The Government attach particular importance to reducing death from breast cancer and cervical cancer. In both cases early detection can lead to successful treatment. Breast cancer is the commonest form of cancer among women in this country. Each year there are something like 24,000 new cases, and 15,000 deaths, from the disease. In July 1985, the Government appointed a working group under the chairmanship of Sir Patrick Forrest to consider the position. I am today publishing its final report and I would like to express the Government's thanks to the group for its work.
The report has concluded that screening by mammography—X-ray of the breasts—will enable us to reduce deaths from breast cancer. The Government accept the proposals made in the report and accordingly have decided to implement a national breast cancer screening service. This will provide for screening every three years for all women between 50 and 64 throughout the United Kingdom. My colleagues, the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, will be putting into effect proposals broadly similar to those I am announcing. We are determined that breast cancer screening should be implemented as efficiently, as effectively and as quickly as possible. This will need careful planning to ensure that all the necessary back-up facilities, as well as the screening centres, are available. It will mean assessment and diagnostic facilities, treatment facilities, counselling and after-care and training for key groups of staff. We have, therefore, decided to provide additional funds for each regional health authority to have at least one centre in operation within the next 12 months. The funds will also enable four of these centres to provide a training facility for the whole country. We shall expect the locations of the first centres to be announced by May of this year. An extra £6 million will be provided in 1987–88 for the first centres.
In addition, I shall shortly be sending to the professions and to health authorities a draft circular containing my detailed proposals for implementing breast cancer screening in England. I shall be calling for plans before the end of this year from each region to extend the service over the next three years to cover all women in the age groups concerned. The report envisages that up to 100 centres are likely to be needed in England. I shall also be setting up an advisory committee to advise on the development of screening and to monitor its effectiveness and efficiency. Breast cancer is a major scourge. We believe that these measures will achieve a substantial reduction in the mortality from this disease among women of this age group.
Cervical cancer kills 2,000 women each year and we are no less committed to reducing that figure. The great majority of those 2,000 deaths are among women who have never had a cervical smear under the existing screening programme. We have already taken urgent steps to increase the effectiveness of that programme and, in particular, to increase the proportion of the population at risk who are being screened. Computerised call and recall systems should be operating in 109 health authorities in

England by next month and in the remaining 82 over the next 12 months. They will enable women to be sent personal screening invitations, usually from their own general practitioners.
Our first priority is to persuade more women to come forward for screening. We shall closely monitor the success of the system and we shall keep under review ways of making further improvements. In addition, I shall be asking health authorities to make two specific changes. First, since the number of cases among younger women has been increasing, health authorities should rationalise existing arrangements for screening women under 35 by ensuring that the call and recall system begins at the age of 20. Second, I shall be asking each health authority to make a specific named individual responsible and accountable for the organisation and effectiveness of screening.
Our proposals for both breast and cervical cancer screening take account or the wide range of evidence available from other countries. I am convinced that these proposals will make a substantial contribution to the cause of women's health, which is a key priority for the Government.
On AIDS research, as the House is aware, there is at present no vaccine against the virus or cure for AIDS. It is for that reason that the Government have mounted their major public education campaign. It is also important, in addition, that we in this country should make an effective contribution to the international effort to develop a vaccine and a cure.
In recognition of that need, the Medical Research Council has recommended a new directed research programme aimed both at developing a vaccine that will prevent infection and also at new anti-viral drugs to treat people who are already infected. The research would be directed from the centre by two scientific steering committees, which will consist of some of the country's leading scientists. There will be two specially appointed full-time directors and the programme will be built up by letting specific contracts to the most appropriate laboratory—public or private. That proposal goes beyond the usual approach of research initiated by the investigator.
The Government are extremely grateful to the MRC for taking a lead in formulating those proposals, which are based on wide consultations among outstanding British scientists by Sir James Gowans, the secretary of the MRC, with Sir David Phillips, the chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. This country has scientific strengths that should enable it to make a distinctive contribution to those important lines of research. The Government commend the readiness of the scientific community to collaborate in tackling this major problem.
Accordingly, the Government welcome the proposal and accept it in full. We will, therefore, launch in 1987–88, through the Medical Research Council, a new directed research programme on the lines that the council has proposed. For this purpose my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will increase the grant in aid to the MRC by £14½ million over the next three yeas. The grant in aid will go up by £2·5 million in 1987–88, by £5 million in 1988–89 and by £7 million in 1989–90. The programme will be closely monitored by the council, with my Department and the Department of Education and Science. This will enable us to review


progress against results. I should make it clear that the directed research programme will not affect or hinder any research initiatives by pharmaceutical companies.
The new programme should not be seen as an isolated venture. It is not. It will be part of an international research effort. We will build on the work already done, especially in the United States, and in turn contribute to the international body of research information that is being built up. In the United States, all the medical scientists whom I met in my recent visit were unanimous in their view that the United Kingdom could indeed make a distinctive contribution to AIDS reseach.
The House will appreciate that it is impossible to predict the progress of that research. In earlier statements I have made it clear that we cannot expect a vaccine or cure to be generally available within five years. But this programme will help us to make progress in three ways. It will enable this country to make a full contribution to AIDS research; it will mean that we are better placed to collaborate with, and benefit from, work that is being done in other countries; and it will increase the chances of developing a vaccine and finding a cure. I hope that the House will welcome the new proposals.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that, while we certainly welcome the increase in AIDS research moneys now being made available, even with that new input, it is still far, far less than other countries—[Interruption.]—it is still far, far less than other countries are allocating for this purpose, and also far, far less as a proportion of the health budget than public concern demands in this country? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the United States is currently spending over $340 million on AIDS research, while his own parliamentary answer to me a week ago said that AIDS research so far in this country totalled precisely £⅓million?
Is the Secretary of State aware that, even after today's increase, expenditure on AIDS research in this country will still constitute less than one 20th of 1 per cent. of the health budget, which is far, far less than the priority allocated to it in other countries? Is he aware that the Medical Research Council has stated that £20 million funding is required to find a vaccine and to develop new drugs, and that the MRC's budget could not cope with that? Will he give an assurance that the extra funding for AIDS announced today will not have any knock-on effect in reducing medical research in other areas?
What positive action are the Government taking to develop and distribute the drug AZT, where some promising trials have halted virus replication? What other specific research will be directed at a therapy to regenerate the damaged immune system? Will the right hon. Gentleman also say what action the Government propose to take to overcome the reluctance of drug companies to undertake the necessary research work because of the dangers of litigation if the vaccine has unforeseen effects?
On breast cancer screening, is the Secretary of State aware that the extra funds announced today, again very welcome as they are, will fund only about seven new centres to add to the present two? Is he aware that that is a grossly inadequate response to the Forrest report, when 5,000 women have died of breast cancer while the Government have been sitting on that report since last

year? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that when one in 12 women get breast cancer, and when it is the leading cause of death among 35 to 54-year-olds, the £6 million announced today will fund only a very small part of what a potential effective screening programme could achieve? What specific commitment is the right hon. Gentleman making today for the vast bulk of the extra funds that will be needed.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the £6 million announced today will not even fund screening for all women over 50 when the success rate from screening is as high as 40 per cent? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that one third of the mammogram machines in this country are obsolete, and the Government currently provide only one 10th of German provision? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the £6 million cannot possibly fund the training and employment of the extra radiographers, the doctors to analyse the X-rays, the laboratory staff to test the tissue, and the female counsellors needed?
Is the Secretary of State aware that when, six years ago, the Government instructed district health authorities to set up call and recall systems for cervical cancer but failed fully to fund the development, by last year only one-sixth of those authorities had done so? Is it not clear that underfunding today will have the same tragic consequences?

Mr. Fowler: That was a disappointing and grudging response. The hon. Gentleman will not have the support of any informed commentator outside the House for what he said about AIDS and breast cancer, and some of the charges that he made are simply untrue and misleading. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Forrest report, he will find that what we are doing is exctly in line with what the Forrest committee has proposed. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's points, such as they were, in turn.
The hon. Gentleman asked about finance. We are making available £14·5 million over the next three years. That is additional money for the Medical Research Council, which is exactly what it has asked for. In other words, we are responding in full to its request. If the hon. Gentleman wants to challenge that, I suggest that he checks with the Medical Research Council. He is misleading himself and the House.
The United States has a bigger overall research budget, but a comparatively small percentage of that budget is going into vaccine development. In other words, gaps in the programme have been identified, not least by medical scientists in the United States. My announcement today will put Britain in a leading position in Europe. I would have expected the Opposition to have welcomed that rather than criticised it.
The Committee on Safety of Medicines will be taking a decision on AZT shortly—in the next few days—and we will then make our position clear.
The overall research budget of the private pharmaceutical industry is about £500 million. Not all of that figure, but an increasing percentage of it, will be spent on AIDS research.
With regard to breast cancer, I repeat that we are meeting in full what the Forrest committee has put to us. In 1987–88, £6 million will be available. In 1988–89, a further £13 million will be required. In 1989–90, £22 million will be required. Those resources will be made available so that we can have a screening service


throughout the country. I ask the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to understand that what we are announcing is a major step forward for millions of women in Britian. The hon. Gentleman's response to both parts of the statement was inadequate and totally worthless.

Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House a little more about the sum that is to be spent—I think that he said it was £14·5 million over three years— on AIDS research? He mentioned international co-operation. Will he tell us whether, and to what extent, there is international coordination, or will we be spending part of that £14·5 million on carrying out the same research that is being done in other countries?

Mr. Fowler: There is co-ordination between the World Health Organisation, Governments and organisations in different countries. On medical vaccine, we will want to keep closely in touch— as will the Medical Research Council—with the World Health Organisation on what is happening inside the United States. We will take every precaution to prevent duplication of research.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the Secretary of State in a position to tell us when and in what form parallel statements about cancer screening in other parts of the United Kingdom will be made?

Mr. Fowler: I understand that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland will make announcements, probably in the form of written answers, which will be based on what I have announced on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in contrast to the churlish response from the Opposition Front Bench, his announcement was welcomed on this side of the House on all three fronts? Is he further aware that in my constituency there is some concern at the delay in results from cervical smear tests? To what extent will what he has told us help to accelerate the results of those tests for women who spend an anxious time waiting for the outcome? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the work done by the organisation Quest for a test for cancer, which has developed an automated form of testing? To what extent, if any, will what he has announced this afternoon assist that organisation, either directly or through the MRC, in evaluating that test?

Mr. Fowler: I would need to give consideration to my hon. Friend's last point. On the first point, I accept the backlogs to which he refers as being one of the problems that we have had to encounter. The backlogs are being tackled by the districts, and they are recruiting more staff. The latest information that we have appears to show that the backlogs are decreasing. Clearly that is important. The priority must be not only to increase the numbers coming for tests but to improve the cervical cancer screening system overall so that we get a better system. It is worth remembering that annual deaths from cervical cancer have reduced by almost 10 per cent. since 1978. That is an improvement, but we want to decrease the number of deaths still further.

Ms. Clare Short: Any advance in cervical and breast cancer screening is welcome and overdue. Is the Secretary of State aware that the other

major killer of women is lung cancer? He will be aware that most cigarette advertising is aimed at women. When will he move to ban all cigarette advertising?
Yesterday I had a letter from a haemophiliac man in Birmingham saying that he and three members of his family, who are also haemophiliacs, are AIDS-positive. Is research or action needed better to protect haemophiliacs who are being given AIDS by contaminated factor 8? We have known this for a long time, so why cannot action be taken to prevent it from continuing?

Mr. Fowler: Action has been taken, and the tragic cases, which everybody regrets, are resulting from what has happened in the past. Action has been taken to ensure that factor 8 is heat treated. There is no evidence of new cases through infection over the past few months.
I share the hon. Lady's anxiety about lung cancer, and her concern that we should try to dissuade people from smoking. The way that we and successive Governments have tackled this is the best way. There has been no compulsory ban on advertising but a sensible agreement between the cigarette industry and the Government on what kind of advertising can be permitted and in what form.

Sir David Price: Both aspects of my right hon. Friend's statement are welcome by practically every hon. Member, and certainly by all those in the health and caring professions. What my right hon. Friend has announced about cervical cancer screening is a further step towards turning the National Health Service from being a sickness service into being a genuine health service in which prevention plays a much bigger part than it has in the past. Is not the ability of the MRC to come forward with this ambitious programme on AIDS due to the immense strength of our basic life sciences in our universities, particularly in molecular biology? Will my right hon. Friend talk with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that we maintain that standard in our universities?

Mr. Fowler: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend's last point and certainly I shall talk to my right hon. Friend about that. In addition, I pay tribute to Sir James Gowans who has taken a leading role in this field.
My hon. Friend asked about health education. I hope that it is common ground that the Health Service should concentrate more and more on health education. That is precisely what we are trying to do through the kind of preventative measures that I have announced.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On behalf of my alliance colleagues, I welcome entirely and unreservedly the Minister's statement. However, I should like to ask one or two questions.
First, can the right hon Gentleman tell the House by how much his Department's budget and the Department of Education and Science budget will be increased to pay for these necessary preventative campaigns and courses of action? Secondly, will we see proper co-ordination between the work of the academics and that of the clinicians so that there can be maximum immediate use? Finally, in order to ensure a quick take-up by the maximum number of women of the tests for cervical and breast cancer, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Health Education Council and others will


be given adequate budgets immediately to make sure that all women are aware of the opportunities as soon as they are available?

Mr. Fowler: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has responded generally to the statement about AIDS and breast cancer. The £14·5 million for AIDS will be in addition to what the Medical Research Council has already been promised. The £6 million for regional health authorities will also be in addition to what has already been promised.
The hon. Gentleman asked about co-operation. I hope that I can assure him on that point. In health education generally, one of our purposes must be to try to increase the numbers coming forward. To some extent, that has quite a lot to do with the computerised systems that we are putting in the family practitioner system.
Already 109 districts have computerised systems, and we hope that over the next 12 months the remainder of the districts will have them. In that way we will be in a much better position than previously to bring in people who were missed in previous years. Too many of the people who died in the past were missed in the screening process, and that is why I aim to improve the system.

Mr. Roy Galley: My right hon. Friend has made an excellent statement which signals a major advance in the good health of the nation. The mean-minded carping by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is not justified by the statement. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when the breast cancer screening facilities are fully operational we can look to the possibility of saving 2,000 to 3,000 lives a year? Will he also tell the House that, where possible, he will encourage the provision of screening facilities in the community rather than having them entirely hospital based?

Mr. Fowler: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's first point. He asked about breast cancer screening. Some 1·5 million women will be invited to use the system each year as soon as it has been developed. We are obviously aiming for maximum take-up, but Forrest estimates that the mortality rate in the 50 to 64 age group should be reduced by about one third.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: How many extra staff in pathology and other paramedical specialties does the Secretary of State think will be covered by the £6 million for cancer screening? Is he not aware that in some areas where staffs have been cut administrative staffs have been cut by as much as 30 per cent? How does he envisage that it will be possible to designate people solely to deal with a subject of such urgency? Do we not urgently require a training programme now?

Mr. Fowler: That is precisely what we are doing. One of the reasons why we are having to do this by stages is to build up the trained staff, not only the surgical staff and pathologists to whom the hon. Lady referred, but radiographers and radiologists. Obviously the system will need equipment and premises. I should emphasise that Forrest envisages a build-up of that sort and we are following it exactly in formulating our plans.

Mr. Fred Silvester: Does my right hon. Friend's announcement mean that research institutes involved in vaccine research may now submit

new projects to the Medical Research Council? Does his statement on cervical cancer include any resources for getting rid of the backlog, which in some parts of the country is now severe?

Mr. Fowler: We have sought to tackle the backlog through the district health authorities by recruiting more staff, and clearly that remains a priority. On the matter of research, it is important to underline what the concept of directed research is. The usual approach is for the investigator to initiate the proposal and submit it to the Medical Research Council. Under this proposal the Medical Research Council will initiate and decide which are the most promising areas for research. That is a method used with great success in the United States, but it has been used rarely in the medical research area since the war, but it underlines the importance that the Government attach to medical research on AIDS.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Can the Minister be more specific about laboratory staff? He has been asked several questions on it this afternoon and has been vague in his answers. Can he tell us how, when and where the laboratory staff will be increased, because in parts of Wales we are having to wait for up to three months for the results of cervical cancer tests? That is intolerable because it means that people will be dying unnecessarily because of that sort of delay.

Mr. Fowler: It is not a question of being vague. There are two issues involved. On the matter of cervical cancer, the district health authorities are reducing the backlogs in the districts by recruiting more staff. That is taking place now and that is presumably what the hon. Lady wants.
On breast cancer, there is a need to train staff. I cannot give the exact figures for all 14 regions, but obviously, as the programme goes forward, we will be in a position to do that. The resources are being made available to the regions so that they can provide at least 14 centres by next March and then we will go forward over the following two years to provide 100 centres throughout England.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I think that the whole House, other than one hon. Member, welcomes the statement and would like to congratulate the Secretary of State on it. Does he recognise that, as some 4,000 deaths from AIDS are likely to occur by 1990, it is as serious as cervical cancer? Will he say that, in addition to the £14 million being spent in directed research from the Medical Research Council, it will increase the percentage it is giving in response to applications, which I gather is only £2·5 million out of a budget out of £150 million?

Mr. Fowler: So far £2·5 million has been spent on more than 20 projects through the Medical Research Council. Indeed, until the autumn the Medical Research Council was basically saying that no worthwhile project had been turned away. The Medical Research Council then asked us for an extra £1 million. That was made available immediately. In addition, these extra resources for directed research are being made available. I emphasise that I believe that the series of measures that have been taken, particularly over the past few months, gives us the opportunity to take a leading position in Europe on AIDS research.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I welcome the provisions being made, but, like Oliver Twist, I hope that as the five years pass, there will be better funding. I should


like to ask about mammography and cervical smears. Does the Secretary of State recall that we had a nationwide mobile system for the screening of tuberculosis, which only a few years ago most regional health authorities put into dry dock? Will his Department examine, as a means of easy provision of the facilities for screening, what the cost would be to resurrect that scheme which was, in its day, very effective?
Is the Secretary of State aware that, especially after the menopause, there is a tremendous impact of carcinoma, apart from cancer of the cervix, in the pelvic area? Will he look further at the possibility of screening, not just the priority groups, which he has mentioned and must obviously have in mind, but a much wider range, certainly up to the age of 65? Those women could be helped.
On the matter of AIDS research, has the Secretary of State noticed the bonanza that has been taking place on the stock exchange on the pharmaceutical companies' share prices? As there is heavy competition to hit the jackpot between each of the major companies, will he take steps to ensure that there is an exchange of information, not only with the Medical Research Council and the Secretary of State's Department, but within the pharmaceutical industry itself so that there is maximum knowledge?

Mr. Fowler: On the first two points raised by the hon. Gentleman, I shall certainly consider the implications of what he is proposing. It needs to be said that the private sector of the pharmaceutical industry is doing a great deal of research in this area, and that should be welcomed on both sides of the House. An increasing percentage of research on AIDS is taking place. One of the benefits of a strong private pharmaceutical industry is that the research is taking place.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I must have regard to the fact that this is an Opposition day. I will allow questions to go on for a further 10 minutes. If hon. Members ask brief questions, they may all be called.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his swift and generous response to the request of the MRC. Will he assure the House that there will be no let-up in the Government's efforts to educate the public about the ways in which the AIDS virus can be contracted? Does he agree that in the short term responsible attitudes towards sex can play the biggest part in reducing the number of deaths from AIDS?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend has made an important point, which I mentioned in my statement but which should be underlined. There is no immediate prospect of a breakthrough in that area and everything we say on public education still holds good and, indeed, should be underlined. I am glad to make that absolutely clear.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: As someone who lost a close relative from cervical cancer, I welcome any measure that will help alleviate the problem. Many women do shift work in the catering industry and various other industries. May I ask the Secretary of State to give every encouragement to employers to ensure that those women are allowed time off for screening?

Mr. Fowler: That is a very important point. We will consider what further we can do to encourage exactly that.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I add my warm welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement. Will he consider again the possibility of giving an absolute priority in breast and cervical screening to the back log cases, since I feel sure that one of the problems in this desirable area is that of public and patient expectation? One way of dealing adequately with that problem would be to deal with the backlog as a priority before moving on to the new and extended schemes.

Mr. Fowler: Certainly, on the matter of cervical cancer, I agree with what my hon. Friend says. The priority must be to ensure that the system that we have now works well, and that obviously means tackling the backlog.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I vigorously and positively congratulate the Secretary of State on bringing in the money for AIDS research. His visit to America was obviously most remunerative. Will he make a simple statement at the Dispatch Box that the budget for AIDS will never be cut and that whatever is needed will be found?

Mr. Fowler: We will certainly seek to meet that sort of challenge. The best way of answering that question is by looking at what the Government have already done. We have made massive new amounts available for public education and we are now making new resources available for research as well. That underlines the importance given to AIDS policy, not only by the Government but by both sides of the House.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: May I join right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House in welcoming the statement and the way in which it rises to the challenge— something which the Opposition Front Bench seems too churlish to recognise? Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the £14·5 million towards research is in addition to the moneys which are already being spent or will be spent by the pharmaceutical industry in the same cause? Will he stress once again how important it is that we give higher priority even than this to education and prevention because they are the most important factors in dealing with AIDS in the short term?

Mr. Fowler: I confirm both points. First, this is additional money for the MRC and it is certainly additional to anything that the pharmaceutical industry is spending in this area. Secondly, I stress the importance of public health education. Indeed, at the end of this week we shall see a major campaign by the television companies, both the British Broadcasting Corporation and the independent television companies. I take this opportunity to welcome their initiative. Not everything can be done by the Government or through advertising.

Mr. Max Madden: Is not the question hanging over the statement how much the Government are willing to spend to prevent death? Although the statement is welcome, does the Secretary of State understand that large numbers of people will consider that the money for cervical cancer screening is too late and too little? Is it riot cautionary to remember that the total sum that he has mentioned is less than what was spent on selling the gas industry to Sid and a tiny fraction of the tax handouts given to the rich in the past seven years? Can the right hon. Gentleman say specifically when the age groups of women for screening will be extended both to a lower and to a higher age group? What additional resources are to be


given to local health authorities, including my authority in Bradford, to deal with unbudgeted expenditure on AIDS care? Will additional resources be made available?

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman is rehearsing his constituency speech on the Floor of the House, he has chosen the wrong issue to do it on. We have responded in full to what the MRC has asked for on AIDS. On breast cancer, again we are implementing the Forrest report. In 1987–88 the cost will be £6 million, which, again, will be in addition to the budget. It is not remotely a question of being too little; it is what the bodies have sought and asked for and the Government are responding to it.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while many of us warmly congratulate him on his announcement of funding for AIDS research, we all agree that there must be further public education? Is he aware that we would like him perhaps to have a word with the television authorities on the timing of the AIDS programmes and request them to delay the programmes for a couple of hours, from 5 pm to 7 pm, to avoid young children seeing them and their parents being embarrassed? Could he give some guidance to the television authorities on that point?

Mr. Fowler: I am sure that the broadcasting organisations will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. I understand his point. However, I must say that both the BBC and independent television have responded magnificently to the challenge of AIDS. They have responded exceptionally, and I praise their action, which has been invaluable.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: My right hon. Friend can be assured of the warm welcome of all reasonable people inside and outside this place and he has been most kind to consider some papers on AIDS research from a British team recently. In his busy day, will either he or one of his junior colleagues agree to meet members of that team to ensure that this encouraging opportunity is not missed and the British team receives the fullest possible support?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend has indeed left me with papers on this matter. It is essentially a matter for the MRC, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister for Health and I can consider that.

Mr. Tom Sackville: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his statement and point out that in Bolton, where a breast scanner was bought last year following a successful charitable appeal and where there is wide experience and expertise among the local medical profession, his announcement of a national screening programme will he extremely welcome?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I know that he has a close interest in this area. He has raised the issue as it affects Bolton in an Adjournment debate and, certainly, I hope that Bolton will benefit in the same way as the rest of the country.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend do something about the dreadful AIDS advertisement that starts with the words, "Gay or straight", which seem to invite any adolescent who may read it to an equality of choice? Does he agree that, while he, as I, might like to he looked on in our private and public life as being straight in our dealings with people, in our sexual proclivities we would rather be looked on as being normal? Should not the sensibilities of the majority be more important than those of the minority?

Mr. Fowler: That takes us a little onwards from the issue of AIDS research, but I take my hon. Friend's point. However, I must say that the advertising must get its message over as directly as possible, not only to the general public but to the high-risk groups. Obviously, I regret it if any advertising offends individuals and the public generally, but the greater need and demand is to get the message over to the public.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: In joining the applause for the significant steps forward in research and preventive medicine announced by my right hon. Friend, may I invite him to remind those, such as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who call for unlimited research expenditure on AIDS, that there are other extremely debilitating, terminal diseases which are not self-inflicted and for which cures are desperately needed?
What are the reasons for the age limit between 50 and 64 for breast screening? Does the report conclude that the incidence of the onset of breast cancer before that age is so insignificant as not to deserve the full scheme? If so, is there not in any case some opportunity for those who would nevertheless like to have the breast screening service to have it on demand?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. Obviously, the MRC has health and medical priorities other than AIDS. The Forrest report proposes an age range between 50 and 64 for breast cancer screening. One third of the 15,000 deaths are among women between the ages of 50 and 64 and research has shown that screening that group would be by far the most effective measure. Forrest proposes more research in the 40 age group and we accept that. Screening is also available on demand for those over 65. That, too, is proposed by Forrest and, again, we accept that.

Hinkley Point Power Station

Mr. Frank Cook: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent attention, namely,
the need for an independent inquiry into the safety of continued operation of Hinkley Point nuclear power station.
The matter was highlighted today in the front page piece of The Guardian written by Mr. Paul Brown. The issue is specific because it refers to admissions of falsification of quality assurance records for welds in pressure pipework at a nuclear establishment. Nondestructive testing is the best means yet developed to ascertain the integrity of' butt-weld joints. The reliability of recording such procedures is crucial and has been called into question, not for the first time, but on this occasion with a specific and verifiable history.
The issue is important because if these admissions are substantiated they call into question similar procedures applied during the construction of similar establishments throughout the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Having worked in the industry, I can state emphatically and without fear of contradiction that, although actions of a kind similar to those of Mr. Brookes were not commonplace, they are by no means unique. What is unique in this instance is that we have an individual who has summoned up the courage to lay aside the threat of revenge and the fear of intimidation to square his maturing conscience with a threatened community.
The matter should be given urgent attention because there are three needs. First, there is the need for a truly independent inquiry conducted without prejudice of any kind. To highlight that, I can do no better than refer to the second paragraph of Mr. Brookes' letter to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. He stated:
I am concerned that you do not intend to involve your department directly in the investigation and I am sure that the public will he equally concerned. You are after all the independent body whose concern is meant to be for the safety of the industry. It would appear from your letter that your primary concern is merely to investigate the possibility of bringing a prosecution against me.
That brings me to the second need for urgency—the need to grant to Mr. Brookes immunity from prosecution. If we can do that for supergrasses, can we not do it for infra welders?
The third reason why we need urgency is to offer amnesty to others who live with a similar burden of conscience. We need to do that not only to liberate them from personal guilt but to allow them to identify approximate times and locations where such malpractices may have planted the timebombs of flawed technology in reservoirs of nuclear spite.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for an independent inquiry into the safety of the continued operation of Hinkley Point nuclear power station.
I have listened with the greatest care to the hon. Member, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. Therefore. I cannot submit his application to the House.

Love Lane Bus Depot, Liverpool

Mr. Robert Parry: I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the closure of the Love Lane bus depot and the sacking of"—
[Laughter.] Instead of laughing, Conservative Members should listen. The purpose of the debate is to discuss a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the closure of the Love Lane bus depot and the sacking of 270 transport workers by the Crossville bus company, Liverpool.
The matter is specific because it deals with the sacking of 270 workers, many of them long-serving employees, and the closure of a bus depot in my constituency, which has the highest unemployment level on the British mainland.
The matter is important because more than 150 of the sacked workers have between 10 and 25 years' service. One has more than 30 years' service and is only two sears off retirement age. None of these workers has received or will receive a penny in redundancy pay. That is an absolute disgrace.
The matter should receive urgent consideration because the sacking follows a strike of bus drivers who refused to drive old second-hand buses— some 14 years old with no power steering. Crossville's action may encourage other bus companies to follow its scandalous lead, thus endangering the lives of not only bus drivers and passengers but pedestrians and road users. I hope, for those reasons, that you will grant my application, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the closure of the Love Lane bus depot and the sacking of 270 transport workers by the Crossville bus company, Liverpool.
I regret that I have to give the hon. Member the same answer that I gave the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). I regret that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised as being appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

High Court Injunction (Mr. Speaker's Order)

Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer you to your order of 22 January preventing me and other colleagues in the House from viewing the Zircon film which was the subject of a court injunction. You will be aware that you specifically stated that you made your ruling in order that the injunction should be observed within our precincts.
This morning, Her Majesty's Government did not defend an application by Mr. Campbell in the High Court for the injunction to be withdrawn. Accordingly, it no longer exists. The Government have been unable to find any basis for a prosecution arising from the film. They face the prospect of a substantial claim for damages from the BBC, which has obtained a legal opinion from the dean of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland that the raid of the Glasgow office was almost certainly unlawful, and have been unable to find a legal basis to defend the action for withdrawal of the injunction.
It would be inappropriate for me to invite you, Mr. Speaker, to reconcile last month's campaign to muzzle the press with this month's climb-down by the Government, but it would be entirely appropriate for me—

Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is making a political speech. He should keep to the point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very important matter which is being addressed to me.

Mr. Cook: I think that you will agree, Sir, that in all these matters I have shown respect for the Chair.
I think that it would be appropriate for me to ask you to reconsider your ruling, which was clearly given on the basis that an injunction was in force. Now that that injunction is no longer in force, hon. Members may see in the House a film which many of our constituents have already seen in some of the largest cities in the land.

Mr. Speaker: As the House knows, on 27 January I made the following statement:

I can confirm that, if the House decides to refer the matter"—
my order of 22 January—
to the Committee of Privileges, my instructions…will remain in force until the House itself can make a decision following the report of the Committee of Privileges, so long, that is, as the present injunction remains in force."—[Official Report, 27 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 273.]
I have now been informed, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has said, that the injunction is no longer in force and, accordingly, my order of 22 January ceases to have effect as from now.

Mr. Peter Shore: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the House will welcome your statement not only because it so promptly and exactly fits what you promised the House on 27 January but because of the increasing absurdity felt by right hon. and hon. Members at finding themselves in the position where a film has been banned from being shown in the precincts of the House while it has been freely available to audiences in Cardiff, London, Glasgow, Coventry and elsewhere.
However, Mr. Speaker, given the most urgent promptings of Ministers to you directly, and later in the form of a motion before the House, that this film should be banned, surely it is right that, now that the policy has been totally reversed within 28 days, we should have an explanation by a responsible Minister as to why the Government dropped the injunction proceedings. I should like to know whether you, Sir, have been informed by any Minister of the Government's intention to make a statement and, if not, why not.

Mr. Speaker: I heard only today that the injunction had been dropped. I have been given no indication that there will be a statement.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS for FRIDAY 13 MARCH

Members successful in the ballot were:
Mr. Michael J. Martin
Mr. Peter Lilley
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg

Landlord and Tenant

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I beg to move,
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to extend the existing right to buy to tenants in properties where the landlord's title to ownership is defective; to enable landlords to obtain fair market value for properties which are compulsorily purchased; and for connected purposes.
I believe that such a Bill will not be considered contentious. It is my objective to cut red tape and to be helpful to both house owners and tenants in certain housing matters where an element of injustice has arisen. The injustices are not inherent in the conception of the original housing legislation. However, they have arisen in the margin in some special cases.
Members on both sides of the House have, I believe, now accepted the right of home ownership—admittedly with varying degrees of enthusiasm from the Opposition Benches. The Housing Act 1980 gave secure council tenants a clear right to obtain the ownership of their homes. However, in Bolton many applications have been refused on the grounds of technical defects or uncertainty in the title.
Last year, the responsible Minister singled out Bolton as the worst council which still persistently denied the right to buy on the pretext of defective title. The defective title usually arises from compulsory purchase orders on long leasehold land of which Lancashire has more than most counties. Because of the difficulty in tracking down all those with reversionary interests, the council does not always have complete title. Although the council has powers to perfect the title, it has made a political decision to use this flimsy pretext to prevent a sale. The reason given by the council is a shortage of funds or personnel available to investigate the history of the title to its ultimate. Another excuse is that the Greater Manchester Council residuary body still has an interest, despite the fact that the council has the power to purchase that interest.
That obstruction is against the spirit of current housing policy where maximum incentives to home ownership are being provided. If such a situation arose in the private sector, a form of indemnity would be worked out to cover the vendor against action from people coming forward subsequently with claims to a legal interest in the site or property. I understand that that can be covered by an insurance policy.
I have been involved in mountainous correspondence with Ministers for many months on behalf of numerous unhappy constituents caught in this sad web of circumstances, not of their own making. I have suggested that a provision should be available whereby a purchaser could indemnify the vendor against such claims. However, on political grounds, that was not accepted by Bolton's Labour-controlled council. I have now been told that Wigan council has used this system and in Norwich, where there used to be a similar problem, the council is now cooperating with its tenants. Why is Bolton council not doing that? Must tenants consider bringing a court action to get justice?
Last year, with the guidance of a distinguished former Solicitor-General, I tabled amendments to the Housing and Planning Bill. I was informed by the Government that those amendments raised possible legal complexities which needed thorough examination. However, I believe that

Government legislation could be successfully introduced so that the landlord is deemed to have sufficient interest to sell. Anyone with interest in the land could then claim compensation from the landlord. Such a requirement would no doubt involve amendments to right-to-buy, land registration and compulsory purchase legislation. That would cause much work for the parliamentary draftsmen in the Department of the Environment where I believe that there is already a shortage of draftsmen.
I believe that the matter can wait no longer and that the nettle must now be grasped. I am therefore including these provisions in my proposed Bill which sets out in tablets of stone that council tenants who qualify under normal circumstances shall have the inalienable right to exercise their right to buy. Councils will be deemed to have sufficient interest to sell and will be given full compulsory powers against claimants. It is understood that if claimants have a proven case, they should be compensated fairly.
The other injustice which I wish to tackle in the second part of my Bill is the unhappy situation that arises where property is compulsorily purchased, but is classified as unfit or otherwise does not qualify for fair market value compensation, including cases where the property is empty or not owner-occupied. The effect is to reduce from market value to site value the compensation payable. In Bolton, that could mean the difference between £15,000 and a mere £1,200.
Definitions of fitness for the purpose of slum clearance are set out in section 604 of the Housing Act 1985. Experts in housing law explain that, despite attempts to set out guidelines for assessing unfitness, the definitions are still variable and imprecise.
There is an additional unfairness in this form of virtual confiscation because properties in a clearance area are scheduled for demolition in any case. Therefore, owners are less inclined to maintain them fully or occupy those houses. Not to pay a fair price is a combination of institutionalised meanness and bullyboy bureaucracy. The problem was well recognised in the Government Green Paper, "Home Improvements, a New Approach."
To return to my original theme, the first part of my Bill is a humble attempt to help those who think that they have the opportunity to join the property owning democracy, but find that that opportunity is removed at the last moment. Their hopes are dashed and their spirits crushed. With very little effort, we can bring them the happiness that they deserve.
In the second part of my Bill, I show how we can provide justice for the house owner whose property may have become classified as not being owner-occupied or as being technically unfit because he could not afford to maintain it.
I understand that the Government are sympathetic to the objectives of my Bill even if they have had some reservations about what are believed to be legislative complexities. I believe that those can be overcome and that it would be a fine achievement in one Bill to bring relief to both tenant and house owner in this way.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Thurnham, Sir Ian Percival, Sir George Young, Sir John Farr, Mr. Ian Gow, Mr. Tom Sackville, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Michael Latham, Mr. Malcolm Thornton, Mr. Richard Ottaway, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. John Heddle and Mr. John Powley.

LANDLORD AND TENANT

Mr. Peter Thurnham accordingly presented a Bill to extend the existing right to buy to tenants in properties where the landlord's title to ownership is defective; to enable landlords to obtain fair market value for properties which are compulsorily purchased: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 April and to be printed. [Bill 89.]

Opposition Day

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Priorities for the Elderly

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That this House, noting that more than a quarter of pensioners now live in poverty at or below the supplementary benefit level, that the living standards of pensioners have fallen by an average of about 21 per cent. compared with the rest of the community since 1979, that pensioners are the main victims of the £650 million cuts in housing benefit and that pensioners have been badly hit by the large and increasing cuts in community services and in hospital beds, calls upon the Government to reverse its policy of reducing the resources devoted to the needs of elderly people and to accord pensioners the priority which they deserve and which the nation would wish them to have, not only in terms of income, but also in the range of community services they need for personal independence, security and dignity.

Mr. Speaker: I must tell the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Meacher: The Opposition have chosen the title for this debate—"Priorities for the Elderly"—with care and precision. It is our view, as I shall explain—

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order to delay the debate for a little while, while the Opposition assemble their Members?

Mr. Speaker: That has patently nothing to do with me.

Mr. Meacher: It is our view, as I shall explain, that in one area after another the elderly have been accorded a distinctly low priority by the Government. With 26 per cent. of people over retirement age now living in poverty at or below the supplementary benefit level—

Mr. Eric Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I will not give way.
With pensions every year falling further and further behind living standards of the rest of the community, with huge cuts in housing benefit, a growing shortage of community services and hospital beds and a gross misallocation of resources in the development of residential and domiciliary care, one thing is certain: the elderly in Britain need a new deal.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I shall not give way. I intend to make some progress with my speech, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen.
The first and most important point that I want to make concerns the pension. The Government like to consider themselves as the defenders of choice. I wonder how much choice Ministers believe that pensioners get on £39·80 a week. However, the Government have decreased, not increased, the consumer choice of pensioners. Their buying power relative to that of the rest of the community has gone down sharply over the past eight years. Over that period the pension has trailed no less than 21 per cent. behind the growth of average earnings.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Meacher: No, I will not.
That is the effect of one of the first things that the Government did when they came to power in 1979.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are very experienced and have been in the House for a very long time. Will you draw on your experience and tell the House whether you have ever been in the Chamber during a major and important debate on the elderly when there have been only five Back-Bench Labour Members—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has also been here long enough to accuse one of my hon. Friends of a bogus point of order when he has just made two of the most bogus points of order that I have ever heard.
In 1979, the Government broke the links with earnings which Labour had established in the uprating of pensions. As a result, the single pension has been cut by £7·20 a week and a married pension by £11·40 a week compared with what would have been paid if Labour's formula had been retained.

Mr. David Maclean: The hon. Gentleman said that the Government broke the link which the Labour Government had established. How many times between 1976 and 1979 did they keep to their formula?

Mr. Meacher: I will tell the hon. Gentleman that during the five years when the Labour Government were in power the real value of the pension increased by 20 per cent., whereas under the seven and a half years of Tory rule that we have just experienced, the real value of the pension has increased by only 2·5 per cent. Labour did eight times better.

Mr. Maclean: Answer my question.

Mr. Tom Cox: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that this will be taken as a serious debate. In the few minutes during which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has been speaking, there has been constant uproar in the House. It is a disgrace.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no need for sedentary interjections. They simply delay a debate. This is a very short debate and many hon. Members feel strongly about the subject and want to speak in it. Sedentary interruptions from either side do not help.

Mr. Meacher: The loss for a married couple in retirement as a result of breaking the link with earnings, which is now about £600 a year, would be enough to take thousands of pensioners out of poverty, to ensure adequate heating throughout the winter, to improve the quality of diet most days of the week, to enable more trips to see children or friends, or to buy a holiday abroad. Those may be small matters to those who take them in their stride, but to be deprived of them is to be shut out from the quality of life which others take for granted, and that is what hurts.

Mr. Nicholls: Although the hon. Gentleman will not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member

for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), does he deny the historical fact that in three years out of five the Government of which he was a member and which had passed legislation for an earnings link failed to follow it?

Mr. Meacher: That is a very silly point. What matters to pensioners is the amount by which their pensions increase relative to prices. I am glad to see the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled nodding. Under the Labour Government, it increased by 20 per cent. above prices—

Mr. Nicholls: Will you deny it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must realise that I have nothing to deny. Sedentary interventions are holding up the debate. We must get on with it.

Mr. Meacher: I shall indeed get on with it.
It is a cynical philosophy to pay people the going market rate so long as they are in economic employment but as soon as they are uneconomic or unproductive after a lifetime of work to discard them on the scrap heap of retirement. We know that pensioners today are being discarded when we consider that the basic retirement pension has fallen to only 18 per cent. of average earnings whereas in Germany the figure is 50 per cent. and in France no less than 60 to 70 per cent. We know t hat pensioners are being discarded when the Government Actuary has estimated that under current Government policies the basic state pension will fall during the next 40 years to only 9 per cent. of average earnings. Pensioners are being discarded because, in March this year, the Chancellor will dispense, in one way or another, up to £4 billion of largesse, but all that pensioners will get is an extra 80p a week.
What is almost harder to accept is the fact that Government policies not only condemn millions of people to a miserable subsistence income, but have blocked any future escape route from poverty for millions of workers on below average pay. SERPS offered the one high road out of poverty in old age for the lower paid.

Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No, I will not.
The Government's emasculation of that scheme. plus the worsening relative value of the basic pension and each successive uprating under the Government's price indexing policies, mean that up to a quarter of today's working population will spend their retirement in poverty.
The significance of the Government's assault on SERPS is brought home by a written answer that I received on 12 January. It shows that the additional earnings-related pension received by someone retiring on average earnings this year is slightly over £20 a week. SERPS is already providing a 50 per cent. topping-up of the basic state pension. By 1992, the SERPS addition will have increased to more than £40 a week—more than the entire basic pension today—and by 1998 it will have grown to £78 a week, according to Government figures. For half the population, SERPS offers the best pension scheme that Britain has ever produced. It would for ever break the cycle of poverty in retirement.
The Government repudiated the scheme because they said that it could not be afforded, yet it offers pensions no bigger than the state pensions being paid by the Germans and the French. If they can afford those pensions" why


cannot we? The Government's stated intention to whittle down SERPS is the biggest attack by far on the living standards of the poorer half of the population. The Government, who have heralded six or even seven-figure salaries among their City acolytes, are stretching poverty level retirement far into the 21st century for a large section of today's work force.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman has used the word "poverty" many times in his remarks so far. Where does he get his figures and on what does he base his repeated assertion that there is poverty among this group?

Mr. Meacher: Does the hon. Gentleman differ from the conventional view, which I certainly share, that anyone who must subsist on supplementary benefit is living in poverty? Could he live on £45 a week compared with his salary which, like mine, is more than £300 a week? That is an exceedingly low standard of living compared with average earnings of £200 a week. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the goodness to share my view that that is a disgracefully low standard of living. The fact that the number of people on supplementary benefit has doubled under this Government is an indictment of their disgraceful policies.
If tomorrow's pensioners are not much of a priority with this Government, nor are today's. In one year's time, the Fowler social security pack—if it is not repealed by a new Government after the election—will drastically worsen the position of many pensioners. According to the Government's figures, 2,250,000 pensioners will lose money, including 820,000 who will lose more than £2 a week and 120,000 who will lose more than £5 a week. They may be small amounts to grinning Conservative Members, but they represent substantial losses when the entire pension is only £40 a week.
In particular, pensioners will be the main victims of the £450 million cut in housing benefit, which comes on top of the £200 million cut made recently in housing benefit and which also hits mainly pensioners. They will probably be the main sufferers from the abolition of single payments and the introduction of the social fund in a year's time.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman needs to learn a few manners and then I may give way.
It is surely cruel to expect pensioners on low incomes to repay loans towards essential items. The likely effect of that Government policy must be that even more pensioners will refuse to ask for help. Indigence will once again be the price of self-respect. It is also harsh that loans will not be available to those with savings of more than £500, who will be penalised for setting aside money for funeral costs. It cannot be justified to end lump sum grants to meet exceptional circumstances such as high fuel bills and draught proofing, for which elderly people are unlikely to take up loans. The abolition of the death grant cheats generations of people who have paid insurance contributions all their lives.
Even if pensioners' incomes and benefits were cut, that would not matter so acutely if the essential services on which they rely were increased. In fact, the reverse has happened after the scythe of rate support grant cuts and rate capping has hacked its way through so many local

authority services. Of all groups in the population, it is the over-75s for whom community health and social services are critical. On average, they use them four and a half times more extensively than the general population. Yet services have not kept up with the growth in the number of people over 75—some 17 per cent. since 1979. For example, the number of geriatric beds in hospitals has been virtually static—an increase of less than 0·5 per cent.
The Audit Commission report published two months ago, which I recommend, has an excellent analysis of Government policy called "Making a Reality of Community Care". It states:
There has been no increase per person aged 75 or over in community based services central to supporting elderly people: home helps and meals-on-wheels.

Mr. Forth: I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair when making his arguments. Does he agree that the number of consultant geriatricians has increased under the Government by at least 34 per cent.? That one figure provides some balance to what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. Does he acknowledge that a balance should be struck in all these things and that great achievements have been made in some significant areas under this Government?

Mr. Meacher: There has been a welcome shift in medical personnel towards geriatric, psychiatric and mental handicap. All Governments support that; we did so and I am glad that it has been continued and developed further. I am only sad that, although there are more consultant geriatricians and a considerable increase in the numbers needing their care, there has not been an increase in the number of beds available in hospitals. That is a great pity. The Audit Commission's report is a stunning indictment of Government policies which, it concludes, represent a fundamental misallocation of a total £6 billion budget between the National Health Service, social services and social security, devoted to the case of the elderly, the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill. It found that domiciliary care averages a cost of about £95 a week for an elderly person, while a residential home place costs about £135 a week and a bed in a National Health Service geriatric ward costs about £295 a week. However, because the paraphernalia of Government financial controls has decimated local authority social services, we have the absurd paradox that thousands of elderly people are now cared for in institutional settings, costing up to £300 a week, when they could be receiving more appropriate care in the community at a total cost to public funds of only about £100 a week.
The Audit Commission endorsed a view that the Opposition have repeatedly expressed, that it is a ridiculous perversion of priorities that local authority social services, which are determined by need, have been continually eroded by Government financial cuts, while supplementary benefit moneys, to the tune of no less than £600 million a year, are now being channelled through the board and lodging regulations into a virtually open-ended subsidy of the private sector, with no test of the need.
There is another nonsense in the system because it produces a strong financial bias in favour of residential care at the expense of domiciliary care in the community, although the latter is generally preferable wherever it is possible. The truth is that community care, for all the rhetoric that we have heard from the Government, is grossly neglected. Most social service departments are now


not achieving even the 2 per cent. growth that the Government consider necessary simply to maintain existing standards. The DHSS guideline published 10 years ago, laying down that there should be 12 home helps per thousand people over 65, has, frankly, become a distant dream in most areas. Certainly, the number of home helps, the most crucial arm—I am sure it will be agreed—of all social services, has not kept pace. The average has now fallen to about six per thousand, half of the level set 10 years ago.
In practice, that means that in many areas today an elderly person who is confused, incontinent and liable to fall, now has a home help for perhaps only two hours a week and, in many areas, has to pay a significant fee for a limited service.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not dream of misleading the House. He will be aware that the number of home helps has increased by more than 14 per cent. since 1978 and that there has been a substantial increase—some 15 per cent.—in the number of day centres. The hon. Gentleman should not be so churlish.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman should not accuse me, but should look at the Audit Commission's report. That is entirely independent and states that there has been no increase per person for those aged over 75 in the essential—[Interruption.] I prefer the Audit Commission's report to the figures given by Conservative Central Office, largely because it is a great deal more accurate. I suggest that Conservative Members read official sources and not biased and partisan notes from their party.
In the face of that neglect, because we accord a much higher priority to the needs of the elderly, the Labour party is proposing a five point plan of community care. The first point is an audit of social need, to be carried out on a regular basis by each social services department, which would match the audit of health needs to be carried out in parallel by each health authority. The establishment of unmet needs is, I strongly suggest, the foundation of community care, and it is a huge omission that, for all the talk, that has never been done comprehensively by the Government during the past eight years. Only when needs are systematically known can services be realistically planned.
Secondly, we propose community-based assessment teams to work closely with elderly and disabled people and their carers to draw up care plans tailor made for each individual, after consultation with them. We also propose that a named person be appointed to help each elderly and disabled person negotiate the maze of different agencies that must be tackled to obtain such services as rehabilitation, chiropody, day care, temporary respite care or whatever.
Thirdly, we intend to produce a much better balanced distribution of services throughout the country. The Audit Commission makes a radical criticism of existing policies and states:
A very uneven pattern of local authority services has developed, with the care that people receive as much dependent on where they live as on what they need.
There could scarecly be a more fundamental contradiction of a proper national service than that. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will wait to hear what I am about to say.
At present, home help provision varies by a factor of about 7:1, according to where one is in the country. Sunderland, for example, provides 70 hours home help per person each year, while Surrey provides only 11. It is noteworthy that, of the top 30 local authorities providing the most home help, all but three are Labour controlled, while the bottom 30 local authorities providing the least home help are Tory controlled. Such huge inequalities of service provision to meet the same needs in different parts of the country are unacceptable, and therefore we shall ensure that minimum standards are met.
Fourthly, we propose a charter for carers. Current Government policies of neglect and cuts impose an intolerable burden on a great many of the 3·25 million women who provide essential part-time and full-time care for elderly or disabled relatives. Although many perform full-time caring duties, almost without relief, for 20 or 30 years, into their seventies or even older, often to the point of physical or mental breakdown, their unrecognised needs surely make them one of the most neglected groups in today's welfare state. Therefore, we propose a flexible respite care system. Carers need support, especially night sitting services, hospital nursing, holiday care, a more flexible home help arrangement, short-stay residential accommodation for members of their family, and self-help centres for counselling and support, because they are often isolated. To pioneer and carry through this new approach, we shall appoint a carers liaison officer in each local authority, who will be responsible for identifying carers and providing, as far as possible, the range of support services that are needed—

Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way again.
Fifthly, and most important, in developing community care we recognise that choice is crucially important. If service means anything, it must mean that elderly people can voice their views and be confident of a response that takes them into account. That is why we support a statutory right for an elderly or disabled person to be represented by another person in meetings with local authorities or other officials, and an appeal system that can challenge unfavourable local authority decisions.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No. The hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber. I shall no': give way—[Interruption.]
That is why we support a pluralistic approach, including elderly—

Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remark. I have been in the Chamber for all of his speech, although it has been painful to listen to it. I hope that he will withdraw his remark and apologise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That matter is for the hon. Gentleman to decide.

Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber for the course of the debate, I apologise to him. I did not see him. Indeed, I shall now give way to him.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman has listed many admirable points. In fact, many Conservative Members will rather look forward to getting old if we can enjoy the


various services that he will provide should his party come to office. Will he give hon. Members the exact cost of the programme that he has outlined?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is the seventh intervention, during a 20-minute speech, made by hon. Members who are waiting to catch my eye. They are prejudicing their own chances.

Mr. Meacher: As there is a gross misallocation of resources in favour of institutional care, the provision of domiciliary care, although it will not be much cheaper, may work out at some significant saving. Of course, what we are proposing is highly labour-intensive, but it is wholly accommodated within the £6 billion budget for jobs by which we intend to put—we shall do so—1 million people back to work, including, probably, over 100,000 of them in the area to which I referred.
At the root of the programme is a better allocation of public spending. The Audit Commission speaks of a
serious distortion of public expenditure priorities.
It adds:
the social security policies of the Government appear to be working in a way directly opposing community care policies.
At present, there is a fundamental misallocation in favour of residential care and against domiciliary services. There is a fundamental misallocation in favour of the private sector that is not based on need, and against local authority services that are based on need. There is a fundamental misallocation, which is characteristic of the Government, in favour of tax cuts for the better-off and against the interests of the pensioner. We shall reverse all of that. That is why we propose an immediate £5 a week increase in the pension for single pensioners and an £8 a week increase for married couples to be paid for by recouping the £3–5 billion in tax relief handed out since 1979 to the richest 5 per cent. of the population.

Mr. Derek Conway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way.
That is why we propose to restore the link with earnings in the uprating of the pension so that, once again, pensioners will share in rising living standards with the rest of the community. That is why we shall repeal the provisions of the Fowler Social Security Act 1986, which undermines SERPS as the high road out of poverty in old age. That is why we shall sweep away the piffling and fragmentary severe weather payments scheme, which is so pitted with holes, and replace it by a proper £5-a-week special winter fuel premium for each week throughout the winter to all pensioners on supplementary benefit and to a further million living in the margins of poverty only just above the supplementary benefit line. That is why we have published major plans for the development of community care which offer a charter of liberation for the elderly, the disabled and their carers.
Those are all priorities for the elderly, and they are our priorities, too. Because they are the priorities for millions of families for whom the care of the elderly is a fundamental concern, they will be one of the central issues that will sweep away the Government in the forthcoming election and bring to power a party that believes in and shares such priorities and principles.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. John Major): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'believes that pensioners deserve a good standard of living in retirement, whether their incomes come from state benefits, occupational pensions or savings, notes with approval that the Government's economic policies have reversed the previous sharp decline in the value of pensioners' savings; welcomes the higher level of expenditure on benefits for elderly people even after taking account of provision for one million additional pensioners since 1978; and congratulates the Government on its success in improving pensioners' living standards in both absolute and relative terms.'.
I assume from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that the substance of the Opposition's motion is largely—and inaccurately—drawn either from the low income figures published last summer, which are now nearly four years out of date, or from parliamentary questions based on them. That is clear from the hon. Gentleman's response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), and it is frankly astonishing.
The hon. Gentleman should know—the House has been told—that the statisticians who compile the figures that he has used so casually asked for a technical review of them because of their shortcomings. He should also know that the base line for including pensioners in those figures is 25 per cent. higher than for everybody else and that the heating additions, worth between £2·20 and £5·55 per week for pensioners, are excluded from those figures, as are all other additional requirements. Not one of these facts found a mention in the false and sweeping allegations that formed the foundation of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
The hon. Gentleman defined poverty as the supplementary benefit level and said that he had always regarded that as the level. That was in sharp contrast to the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) who, as Minister for Social Security, on a series of occasions expressly rejected that precise proposition. I shall refer to the details of poverty and matters of that sort a little later, as I have some accurate figures—not the fantasy figures that the hon. Gentleman used—that he may find rather unpleasant. They are not Government figures and the hon. Gentleman will be wise to wait to hear them as they will be enlightening to him and, I suspect, to many others as well.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend spoke of enlightening the House. Has it escaped his notice that, on this Opposition day, at this stage of the debate there are only five Labour Back Benchers, one Liberal Member and one SDP Member present? Is he not surprised at the lack of interest in the figures that he is about to give and worried that his message will not get across to enough Opposition Members?

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is a perceptive mathematician, but from the flurry on the Opposition Benches I fancy that he neglected to mention that 50 per cent. of Plaid Cymru is also present on this occasion.
The claim of the hon. Member for Oldham, West that the living standards of pensioners have fallen by 21 per cent. compared with the rest of the community would be greeted with alarm on this side of the House if there were a grain of truth in it, but there is not. Adult full-time earnings have risen in real terms by 21 per cent. since 1978


—itself a tribute to the success of the Government's economic policies—but the hon. Gentleman ought not to mislead others as he should know that adult full-time earnings are in no way a reliable guide to the growth in incomes among the non-pensioner community. I shall come shortly to what is a reliable guide. Nor is the growth in the basic state retirement pension a guide to the growth in living standards of pensioners. Had the hon. Gentleman done his homework properly, he would know that the true position is precisely and absolutely the reverse of that which he has stated to the House in the last few minutes.
Since 1979, pensioner living standards have risen by nearly one fifth—twice as fast as those of the community as a whole. The hon. Gentleman totally overlooked the dramatic impact of occupational pensions, investment income, the growth in disability benefits and the aggregation of the additional component of pensions that comes from the state earnings-related pension scheme. None of those matters found a mention when he talked so misleadingly about poverty levels.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Major: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later.
I do not intend to spend too much time on misleading and irrelevant figures. I propose to deal with facts that are based on clear statistical methods, not on the unreliable facts that the hon. Member for Oldham, West chose to use.
This debate is concerned with priorities for the elderly, so I shall deal immediately with those priorities, as revealed by the latest information from the family expenditure survey. I hope that nobody doubts its veracity as the family expenditure survey data are published, well known and well respected and the facts are unchallengable. if we look at the 1985 data, which the hon. Gentleman has clearly failed to do, some interesting comparisons can he made. These are the latest available data. We find, for example, that in real terms pensioners' incomes from retirement pensions and income related benefits increased at much the same annual rate between 1974 and 1979 as they did between 1979 and 1985, but since 1979 the reduction of inflation has meant that, on average, pensioners' incomes from savings have increased by 7·3 per cent. per year compared with a reduction of 3·4 per cent. per year between 1974 and 1979. That is a sharp and welcome improvement, but that is not all.
Occupational pensions have also spurted ahead quite substantially, and in constant prices now add, on average, about £18·60 per week to pensioners' incomes, compared with £12·30 in 1979. These various increases mean that under the present Government pensioners' total average net incomes—net of tax and national insurance, where applicable—have grown by no less than 2·7 per cent. per year in real terms since 1979, compared with 0·6 per cent. between 1974 and 1979. I should make it clear that the net disposable income available to pensioners is rising four and a half times faster now than it did during the period of the last Labour Government. That fact is revealed by the family expenditure survey and the comparison should make not just the hon. Member for Oldham, West but his right hon. Friend the Shadow Chancellor think very deeply about their proposed policies on social security and the economy. I will, however, make a concession to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Meacher: Since those figures, which we shall have to look at very closely, are heavily dependent not on the basic pension but on the state earnings-related pensilon scheme and occupational pension schemes, why have the Government done their best to undermine both by whittling down SERPS and by replacing good occupational final salary schemes with personal portable pensions that are much worse?

Mr. Major: We have done nothing whatever to damage occupational pension schemes. We have opened up a substantial opportunity for the 11 million people who do not have an occupational pension scheme to have one in the form of a personal portable pension, and we have made that pension transferable. The hon. Gentleman should know, but apparently he does not, that none of the SERPS changes will in any way affect anybody who retires this side of the year 2000. By that time, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he studies the family expenditure survey, the difference will be more than adequately made up by the growth in the other factors that I have just mentioned.
What is important to pensioners is the amount of net disposable income that they have to spend.

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister has said a great deal about income. Will he now please consider outgoings? Will he tell us what has been the impact on pensioners of the changes in housing costs brought about by the Government? What proportion of pensioners' incomes is now swallowed up by housing costs? And what has been the impact of the progressive cuts in housing benefits, upon which so many pensioners depend?

Mr. Major: These are net disposable spending figures, as I tried to explain a few moments ago.

Mr. Raynsford: Answer the question.

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman will know that the vast majority of people who are on very low incomes still receive a very high level of standard rate housing benefit, both for housing costs and for rates. He should know that as well as any right hon. or lion. Member, but I fear that he sometimes forgets it.

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister is dodging the question.

Mr. Major: I make this concession to the hon. Member for Oldham, West. Percentage growth rates can be confusing for him and for others, so I will set out the points that I have just made in terms of actual pounds in the pocket—a phrase that Opposition Members may conceivably remember. I see one or two of them wriggling, so they clearly do remember it.
At 1985 prices, pensioners had an average net income of £68·50 in 1974. By 1979, it had crawled up by £2·10 per week to reach £70·60, but between 1979 and 1985 it rose by no less than £12·50 to £83·10. That represents a rate of growth over those six years well over twice the rate of growth in incomes of the population as a whole. I shall repeat that in case Opposition Members have not heard me clearly enough. Under this Government, pensioners' total incomes—I emphasise "total incomes"—from all sources have risen, in real terms, more than twice as fast as the incomes of the whole population. When one looks at priorities for pensioners, that is the reality.

Mr. Raynsford: Now will the Minister answer my question?

Mr. Major: The Opposition occasionally accuse us of being uncaring and harsh towards pensioners. Frankly, that is both spiteful and ludicrous. I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who is always a fair man, will study carefully the family expenditure survey so that he may draw the conclusions that we have reached after having looked carefully at these matters in recent weeks.
The state pension is not, of course, the only element in pensioner incomes. It tends, however, to be all that the Opposition ever choose to mention. Beyond that, to put it mildly, their view seems a little blinkered. Other elements, such as occupational pensions and income from savings, have been growing and will continue to grow. Occupational pensions now go to nearly one half of all pensioners and to as many as 70 per cent. of new pensioners. Of the remainder, many will have an additional component to their basic pension. That is entirely as it should be and entirely in line with the philosophy of Beveridge. Beveridge envisaged the state pension as providing a level of maintenance, topped up by savings and income from other sources. He never envisaged it—as sometimes I get the flavour that the Opposition do—as the sole source of pensioners' incomes, and it is a perversion of his ideals to suggest that. It is the Conservative side of the House that follows the Beveridge principles, and it does so in a fashion that the Opposition can never begin to comprehend.
For the future, I believe that we can now look forward to a prospect that would have been unbelievable some years ago. We can now anticipate not merely the two-pension family with one state and one occupational pension, but also the four-pension family. Far more married women now work, and the abolition of the reduced rate married woman's national insurance contribution means that increasing numbers of women will have entitlement to a state basic pension in their own right, probably with an earnings-related supplement, as well as an occupational pension. Those trends mean that the steady improvement in pensioner incomes which we have seen over the past seven years should continue as the whole House hopes. That is our priority for pensioners— independence, security and choice—and that is what they have been getting since 1979.
Let us now consider the Opposition's propositions. The hon. Member for Oldham, West again mentioned the increase of £5 for single pensioners and £8 for married couples that he proposes to make in Labour's first year of office, should that be achieved by the principal Opposition party. That may seem a clear-cut promise, but it is not. For one thing, despite repeated challenges and opportunities, the hon. Gentleman still has not clarified whether the full value of this pledged increase will go to the poorest pensioners through an increase in supplementary benefit scale rates and housing benefit needs allowances. Without this, the full benefit of any increase will go only to the better-off pensioners. I am glad to say that there are more of those around now than there were eight years ago, but it is extraordinary that the Opposition's policy is still apparently to help the better-off pensioner and to ignore the poorest. This is, after all, a debate on priorities for the elderly. [Interruption] The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) scoffs; perhaps he can answer this question. The Opposition have not made it clear whether the long-term sick and disabled and widows are to be included in their proposals. At present they get the same as retirement pensioners. The reason the Opposition have

been so coy is simple. Because of the cost, the poorest will be ignored in the electoral bribe that the Labour party will offer the people in the coming months.
We have been told repeatedly that the Opposition expect to raise about £3·6 billion from tax increases. I stress again, for the umpteenth time, that unless the Labour party denies help to the poorest, to widows and to the disabled, the price of its pledges is not £3·6 billion, or even £4·6 billion, but £5·6 billion. To put it into context, it is a quarter of the spending on the Health Service. Most people can spend only the money that they actually have, but the hon. Member for Oldham, West promises to spend several times more than that every time he comes to the Dispatch Box.
Moreover, the Opposition seem to have forgotten, if they ever heard it, the very sound advice offered to people in glasshouses. They have criticised the size of recent pension upratings and have offered increases of £5 and £8 as their alternative, but at no time in the two years since that alternative was first aired have they contemplated uprating that promise. Prices have risen by 7·8 per cent. since then, but the Opposition's offer to pensioners has not changed. I understand why, but something seemed familiar when it occurred to me that it had not been uprated, so I cast a backward look at the Labour party's record when it had the opportunity to do something about pensions.
The Labour party came to office in February 1974 with a pledge to increase the single person's pension to £10 in the first Budget. The Labour Government fulfilled that pledge, and all credit to them for doing so, but that single increase accounted for about three quarters of the total increase in real terms over the whole life of their Administration—one large increase to implement their electoral bribe and then the pensioners were largely forgotten. Is that to be the pattern as they approach the next election?
Between July 1974 when that manifesto promise was implemented and November 1978, the real increase was just over 5 per cent.—1 per cent. per year in a period when the Opposition like to claim that pensions were being uprated by the better of prices or earnings. The hon. Member for Oldham, West said that Labour will go back to that golden age if they win the next election. It is curious that they have erased entirely from their memory the fact that in 1976 they switched from a historic to a forecast uprating method precisely to cut the pension uprating by a third. Pensions should have gone up by 21 per cent. to match the increase in prices, but they went up by only 15 per cent. and the 6 per cent. loss was never made good. That switch cost about £1·2 billion at current prices. Moreover, in November 1978 the forecast increase in pensions fell short of the statutory obligation by a further 2 per cent.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: For the third time.

Mr. Major: Yes, for the third time, as my hon. Friend says in astonishment. That legacy was left to a Conservative Government to honour, as was the additional cost of SERPS and the abolition of the married women's half-test. Nor is that all.
Broadening the horizon beyond the basic pension itself, the Labour record is one of total and unrelieved gloom. If we examine it—I suspect this will be painful to


Opposition Members—we find that savings, which on average accounted for 14·6 per cent. of pensioners' net incomes in 1974, had declined, both absolutely and as a proportion, to only 12 per cent. by 1979. For every year the Labour party was in office, the value of pensioners' income from savings declined by 3·4 per cent. in real terms because runaway inflation overwhelmed interest rates and pensioners had to live on their capital. That was the reality.

Mr. Greg Knight: Has not my hon. Friend missed something in his account of the Labour party's record? Did not the Labour Government get the economy into such a mess that they could not pay the pensioners' Christmas bonus for two successive years?

Mr. Major: I had not forgotten that—I was about to come to it—but there is now no need for me to do so.
One further point should, however, be made. I am not talking about rich people whose losses might be regarded with equanimity by Labour Members. I am talking about the average of all pensioners, including many elderly people who worked hard all their lives to have a bit extra in retirement and found it utterly destroyed by the calamity of inflation engendered by the Labour Government's economic policies.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West might also like to know that under his party's policies pensioners' total incomes from non-state sources reduced steadily by more than 2 per cent. each year. The House will be interested to know that, on average, pensioners' total net income—the amount they had to spend—increased by a massive 0·6 per cent. per year over the period 1974 to 1979. That is the true record of the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in office, and it is a melancholy record for the pensioners who had to live through that period.
I will say this for the Labour party, however. It is true that pensioners did better than the rest of the population in that party's last period of office, but that is not saying a great deal as its record for pensioners shows. The harsh reality of that period was of pensioners becoming steadily more dependent on State sources because of the Labour Government's failure to provide economic security for the balance of their incomes. The hon. Member for Oldham, West tells me frequently, in the context of means-tested benefits, that pensioners do not wish to come to the Government for support, and I agree. They are proud and independent and they do not wish to do that. But that is exactly what the hon. Gentleman and his party brought about when they were in power. The House can judge the Labour party's policy by its results—0·6 per cent. per year growth in pensioners' incomes. We shall hang that figure round the Opposition's neck whenever they boast of their record on pensions, and we shall compare it with the 2·7 per cent. per year growth in real incomes after inflation since 1979.
The Opposition chose today to debate priorities for pensioners, but their need to examine their own priorities before questioning ours is substantial. Their record in the past was appalling and their promises for the future are unachievable. I urge the House to reject with contempt their impudent motion and to support the Government amendment.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I wish to make a brief intervention in the debate because I have a deep respect for

pensioners. Indeed, I believe strongly that pensioners, having given the best years of their lives to the country, are entitled to expect a return that allows them to live in comfort and dignity. Having listened to the Minister's speech, while I do not doubt for one second a single statistic that he has given, I do not believe that his speech will carry much weight with pensioners.

Mr. Forth: Why not?

Mr. Smith: It is not that pensioners do not believe that the figures are true, but, frankly, they are interested in how much money they will get today, rather than how much they got in 1974. They are interested in what that money can buy them and the present Government's policies. A pensioner of 60, 75 or 80 is utterly bored with the long list of statistics about what this lot did and what that lot did or what happened in 1972 or in 1979. That means absolutely nothing to the vast majority of pensioners. I strongly advise the Minister and the Front Bench to abandon the statistical argument and get down to the realities of the position.
It is nonsensical to imply that millions of pensioners are starving or living on the poverty line, but it is equally nonsensical to imply that pensioners have never had it so good. Despite all the statistics that we have been given, the fact is that the living standards of pensioners still leave a great deal to be desired. We have heard the Minister brag about how much money pensioners save and so forth, but one of my major criticisms of the Government, especially as they are supposed to believe in free enterprise and thrift, is that, with pensioners, such thrift is penalised. The more money that people save in their working lives, the less they receive from the state when they are pensioners. There is a penalty on pensioners' thrift. The Government should answer that complaint.
Some pensioners live in extremely poor circumstances and that especially applies to single people living alone. Ever since 1980 when the Government broke the pension link with earnings pensioners have lost out. That does not mean that pensioners have received nothing or have riot been reasonably dealt with, but they have lost out. In statistical terms the loss has been £5·95 a week for single people and £9·40 for a couple. That loss is the result of the change in the method of calculating pensions.
Today, I speak for the alliance and we are wholly committed to returning to a pension system that links pensions with earnings. It is impossible to say that every pensioner will receive an increase under that system as pensioners' present income and income from other sources must be taken into account. However, we shall also scrap standing charges on gas, electricity and telephones. We shall raise heating allowances and we shall certainly do something about the death grant, which is a source of extreme concern among pensioners.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He says that the alliance will restore the link that operated under the previous Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman and his party had a tremendous influence over the final two years of the life of the previous Labour Government. However, in 1978 the Labour Government did not adhere—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Maclean: They did not adhere to the earnings link. Moreover, in 1979 the Labour Government broke the rule on the proposed uprating that the hon. Gentleman's party had supported.

Mr. Smith: Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the link between the Liberal party and the Labour Government was broken. Certainly that link would have been broken much earlier if I had had my way. I accept that such points may be made, but they are not relevant in 1987—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Hon. Members come to the House and get all worked up and get their knickers in a twist about all the statistics, but pensioners are not worried about them. We sit here arguing and mithering about all those silly statistics, but they have no relevance to the position of pensioners.

Dame Jill Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he return to what he said about standing charges? I am concerned about the proposal to abolish standing charges, because that would mean spending large sums to help many people who do not need that help. Is it not wiser to spend the money on those who are desperately in need?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Lady is aware that I have a deep respect for her, but I do not believe that her argument is necessarily correct. It is possible to abolish standing charges and pass the cost of that abolition on to the cost of the consumption of the services. If one uses services, one pays for the portion of the services used rather than, as at present, paying for services one does not receive merely because one has a right to use them. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady does not understand, let me explain further. Let us suppose that we abolish the standing charge on electricity. That does not mean that, as a consequence of abolition, the electricity board's income must be met through public funds. Instead, the price of electricity is increased. Therefore, those using electricity pay for what they use and that replaces the present system whcrein pensioners, through the standing charge, pay for electricity that they never use.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I could understand the hon. Gentleman's argument with regard to a telephone because I regard a telephone as a vital link to the outer world for the elderly and frail. I cannot accept that argument with regard to electricity. In my constituency many pensioners have under-floor heating and they would be horrified if they had to pay per unit for the amount of electricity used. The hon. Gentleman is aware that this year electricity prices have remained static in the north-west. If pensioners had to pay a lot more for their electricity they would be in far worse trouble.

Mr. Smith: That is a matter of debate, but one thing is certain. We could increase heating allowances and thereby ensure that those allowances go to those who need them. We could ensure that people pay for the electricity that they use rather than, as at present, paying for electricity that they do not use.
The alliance believe that people have the right to retire at any age between 60 and 70, with a full pension at 65. There should be a graduated pension for people from the age of 60 to 65. However, that type of system can only be introduced over a long period of time.
An increase in pensions will do more to create jobs in Britain than a 2p in the pound reduction in taxes.

Pensioners spend their money on goods that produce jobs. The goods that pensioners buy are usually non-imported—that is a statistical fact.
I shall vote for the motion before the House. It is relevant not only to pensions but to other important matters such as community services and hospital beds—that is an acute problem, especially in my constituency. There is also a tremendous need for community care and beds to care for the elderly. The ability to meet that need is sparse. I have never said—I do not now—that the Government have reduced expenditure on the Health Service. That is nonsense. They have spent more on the Health Service. What matters is not whether they spend more but whether the amount is sufficient to meet needs. There are a growing number of pensioners in this country and we need more money to care for them.
Pensioners are in desperate need of sheltered accommodation. I wish to place on record the superb, wonderful job that has been done by housing associations in helping to house the elderly and provide sheltered accomodation. However, there is a great deal more to be done.
The need for community nursing is there for all to see. It is a myth to believe that poverty is the sole problem faced by the aged. There are problems of care and security. I hear pensioners say that they are afraid at night and are frightened to go to bed—I have that problem in my household at the present time. That is a great problem for the elderly. In addition, people are living in conditions that leave a great deal to be desired. Those conditions arise not simply from poverty but from physical handicap, which often comes as a consequence of age, and lack of community care. It is tragic to see that.
There is a great need to look again at our care for the elderly. They are wonderful, lovely people, deserving of help. The Health Service does not cope adequately with the problem. Community care is inadequate. Far more attention needs to be paid to loneliness, and help should he given to overcome it. We need a caring society. I believe that, basically, at heart, we have a caring society. That is why I believe that the vast majority of people, given an honest choice between 2p off income tax and increased aid to pensioners and the Health Service, would vote for the latter. I honestly believe that to be the case.
I repeat that what we need is a new approach, a caring approach backed by Government legislation. The alliance will provide that caring approach.

Mr. Alan Howarth: It has been a most important and encouraging development in our national life that in recent years the principle of care in the community has become so widely accepted and a beacon for social policy. It was a sad and curious feature of our history in the earlier years of this century that that was not the case. Instead, there was an unhappy emphasis, perhaps inherited from the age of the poor law and the workhouse, on segregation and institutionalisation of the elderly and the frail. We can all be deeply glad that in recent years that attitude has given way to a much more open and constructive attitude, when it is far more widely accepted that the elderly are in no sense to be regarded as a problem in society. They are a group within society with distinctive needs, like other groups. We look for practical and constructive ways to help them to meet those needs and make the contribution that they can make as fully fledged


members of society for as long as possible. I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) that we have a caring society, and that is one of its manifestations.
One of the best examples of care in the community in recent years is the very sheltered housing that has been pioneered in Warwickshire, in the Stratford-on-Avon district. It is a model that commands international admiration and is being increasingly emulated. It originated a few years back when the social services committee of Warwickshire county council and the housing committee of Stratford-on-Avon district council together considered what the pattern should be for part III provision for old people's homes. At the same time, they wanted to consider how to improve the existing provision of sheltered housing. They felt that it was much better to take the route of improving sheltered housing, moving forward to new and improved concepts in that area, rather than to retain the old approach of old people's homes.
Two key features of the councils' thinking proved to be creative. One was the recognition that the typical standard of staffing in sheltered housing was not adequate. It was unrealistic and unreasonable to expect a single warden, low-paid, and possibly not provided with accommodation on the site, to take responsibility, on call seven days a week, for perhaps up to 40 residents. One of the reasons why sheltered housing was proving unsatisfactory was that the demands on staff were intolerable.
The second consideration was that the typical standards of design were inadequate. Design standards were set out in circular 69/82, which, I regret to say, is still a current circular, setting standards in important respects. Those standards were inadequate. The councils sought to update and upgrade the standards of sheltered housing. They set about a 10-year programme of building what they termed very sheltered housing. The architectural design would be up to wheelchair standards. There would be no single steps, and the door frames would be wide enough for wheelchairs and for people to pass through with walking frames. The councils also thought imaginatively and sensitively about the residents' need for privacy and for adequate but discreet staffing.
Those standards have been achieved. The key to success in developing the new very sheltered housing complexes and administering them satisfactorily, as has proved possible, was that there was close and willing coordination not only between the housing committee of the district council and the social services committee of the county council, but with the Health Service and the Department of Health and Social Security on the social security side. At local level, the local authorities and the health authority were running ahead of Whitehall thinking. One of their earlier difficulties was to persuade the Department of the Environment and the DHSS in Whitehall to endorse the approach that they wanted to implement.
Anybody who visits the very sheltered housing in south Warwickshire—for example, Melville house in Stratfordon-Avon, Dell court in Henley-in-Arden, Malt Mill lane in Alcester, or one of the other seven purpose-built very sheltered housing complexes—will be not only impressed but moved by the positive and happy atmosphere there. Very sheltered housing meets the wants of elderly people. It becomes immediately clear to anybody who goes there that those elderly people do not feel that they are on the conveyor belt that leads from home to sheltered housing, and then, when sheltered housing becomes too difficult,

into an old people's home and eventually into hospital where they will ail and die. That is not the pattern. Very sheltered housing is a place where people go to form a new community and to enjoy an extended lease of active life and where they are fulfilled as individuals.
The principle is applicable as much in the private as in the public sector. While the pioneering was done in the public sector, there is now a fairly rapid development of very sheltered housing in the private sector. There is immense scope for that. There have been major changes, which have to be taken into account in the making of social policy. It is a new and important fact that now 56 per cent. of people approaching retirement are owner-occupiers. They have a substantial capital asset. As my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned, it is also important that we are now witnessing the emergence of families with second, third, or even fourth pensions. Purpose-built very sheltered housing in the private sector, offering flats or bungalows for sale, provides the means for those assets to be mobilised and released into the most relevant, effective application for people's needs as they get older.
I should declare an interest as an unpaid director of Retirement Security, one of the most progressive private enterprise firms providing very sheltered housing. It 'was founded by Mr. Robert Bessell, the former director of social services in Warwickshire, who was anxious to explore the possibilities of extending to the private sector what had been so successfully pioneered in the public sector.
It is cost-effective for the state to work in partnership with the private sector in this area. In this way, the responsibility, which, as a society, we all share, can be discharged at minimum cost to the taxpayer. There is large scope for a legitimate, cost-effective, mutually beneficial partnership between the social security system and private enterprise. Help can be given to residents in private sector very sheltered accommodation if they run into difficulty with mortgage interest payments or rent payments, or over service charges and rates. Help can be given towards heating costs. They can be helped by way of supplementary pensions, housing benefit and other appropriate welfare benefits, in the same way as any other of our citizens are entitled to benefits.
It is important that the authorities scrutinise each very sheltered housing scheme and each individual claimant case by case. Our experience in Warwickshire is that the authorities do so. We have to safeguard against the abuses that might emerge in such a situation, but there is no difficulty with that.
If the state, on this cost-effective basis, could work with the private sector in helping 50 to 60 per cent. of the elderly population—it would take a long time to move to those proportions—the virtue of that would be not only the good care that the 50 to 60 pr cent. would receive, but that the state would then be able to concentrate the lion's share of its resources on helping the 40 per cent. of pensioners who are not well off and the proportion who, sadly. can only be described as poor.
The hon. Member for Rochdale paid tribute to the role of housing associations. That is the third leg. It is excellent that we have the public sector in local authority provision, housing associations and the private sector working together and working also in competition. Each is exploring the possibilities of innovation. Each is trying to develop new standards of best practice. That must be of advantage to society.
I mentioned standards of best practice. Central Government and local authorities have an important role to play in ensuring that standards are adequate, that best practice becomes better known and that what is regarded as the minimum standard is progressively lifted. I offered the reflection that the design standards stipulated in circular 69/82 were less than adequate in today's circumstances. I am glad that the Government, in circular 80/1, for example, lifted the standard that they envisaged for the provision of lifts. It is disgraceful that in private as well as in public sector developments it is possible to find four-storey buildings without lifts. I can think of one conversion of an old workhouse, which is far too much like the old workhouse.
Central and local government have a responsibility to ensure that standards are adequate. I should like to see a system of registration by private developers in this sector, and I should like to see the state undertaking a monitoring responsibility. I am always reluctant to advocate any increase in bureaucracy, but in this case we must recognise that old people are vulnerable. There is an indispensable role for the state in ensuring that their vulnerability is not taken advantage of. Pensioners are vulnerable to unscrupulous developers. I do not suggest that there are large numbers of unscrupulous developers in this sector, but there is a possibility of that. Pensioners are vulnerable to unscrupulous finance houses which sell them annuities on confiscatory terms. Pensioners are vulnerable to muggers. They would be vulnerable to the inflation that the Labour party would unleash again, devastating their savings.
The Government have rightly been praised this afternoon for their achievement in preserving the value of the retirement pension against the retail prices index. It has been a paramount necessity to restrain public expenditure in the interests of controlling inflation. No single aspect of public policy has proved to be more in the interests of our pensioners than bringing inflation down in the manner that we have. It was difficult even to preserve the value of the retirement pension in a period when not only were there important constraints on public expenditure, but the number of retired people in the population was increasing. As a result of the emergency in our public finances that we inherited in 1979, and subsequently during the recession, it was not possible to do more than limit the increase in the retirement pension to the increase in the RPI. We are now in a different period, with different circumstances. The number of people reaching the age of 65 years is stabilising, and the element of all retired people in our population will progressively stabilise. At the same time, the economy is prospering impressively. We have reached a point at which it is reasonable to say that our 9 million pensioners should share in the growing wealth of the nation.
In his opening speech my hon. Friend the Minister quoted Beveridge, who said that it is dangerous to be in any way lavish with old age. Nobody is contemplating the possibility of lavishness for our retirement pensioners, but the time has come when we can increase the real value of the retirement pension. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State will make representations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking him whether, in his .forthcoming Budget, when it is anticipated that he will have some spare

capacity, he will over-index against inflation the allowances that are directly relevant to pensioners. In particular, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will feel able to increase the retirement pension by more than the general level of inflation.
I also ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider whether the RPI is the right measure for retirement pensions. It is a matter of some disappointment to some of us, at a time when the Government have been reconsidering the components of and are rebasing the RP1, that they may not have sufficiently taken this consideration into account. We all know that the components for expenditure of the pensioner commonly do not include items such as mortgages or the expense of running a car, which the generality of the population expects to incur. We would all agree that the retirement pension could reasonably be measured against a special basket of expenses that are more representative of the expenses that pensioners incur. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to give sympathetic consideration to that point.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): Is my hon. Friend aware, as is the case, that the pensioners' price index gives a less favourable picture for pensioners than the RPI? Pensioners do better with the RPI. That is an important aspect which pensioners should realise.

Mr. Howarth: My request to my hon. and learned Friend was that he would look sympathetically at the point that I mentioned. It is worth further exploration. I know that my hon. and learned Friend would like to find a formula that was of the most benefit to pensioners.

Mr. Tom Cox: Thankfully, this subject has now been given the serious consideration that it warrants. The problem that the vast majority of elderly people face is simple—they do not receive enough money to live on. All of us, whatever party we belong to, whatever side of the House we sit on, represent pensioners. It was unbelievable to hear some of the comments that were made at the start of the debate. What are the comments of the Members who were making those statements when they visit, as I am sure they do, pensioner organisations in their constituencies? We all do that. I am sure that many pensioners would have been appalled at some of the comments that were made this afternoon.
Already, we have heard that next month, when the Chancellor presents his Budget, there will be a lot of money to be given away. I wonder how many pensioners will benefit from that. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) made the valid point that one of the priorities in the Budget should be realistic increases in retirement pensions. The Minister must know that recent increases of 40p and 80p have been received with disgust by pensioners. It is time that we did something far more constructive for them in the level of pensions that they receive.
The number one priority for pensioners is being able to keep their homes warm, and rightly so. Many of us who have a little time to go before we become pensioners often feel cold. We know what it is like. We know that often pensioners live in housing that lacks modern amenities,


and it is essential that they keep their homes warm. The tragedy is that the present heating allowances are inadequate. When we visit pensioners' clubs, this point is made repeatedly to us. Whatever be the existing heating allowance, it is inadequate for the vast majority of pensioners, many of whom, in weather such as that which we have had this winter, have to make a choice between keeping warm and having a properly balanced diet. Both of those are crucial.
The much publicised extra £5 heating allowance was something, but I cannot be more generous about it than that. How many people have benefited from it, and for how many weeks was the benefit paid? I have one of the leaflets being supplied at the local DHSS office, and it looks attractive. It says:
Extra help with heating costs when it is very cold … You may be able to get an extra £5 for every very cold week if you get supplementary benefit or housing benefit supplement.
However, on an inside page the leaflet sets out the savings requirement, which appals pensioners. Under the heading "Savings", the leaflet says:
You can get this help only if at the time of your claim you and your partner or your children have less than £505 in savings between you.
That is a scandalous approach when people need adequate heating allowances. Many pensioners have that sum of money for a particular reason, about which we all know. Pensioners want to know that when, as we all will do, they pass on, they will have adequate funds for a decent and dignified burial. We all know how much funerals cost. I beg the Minister and his Department to look again at the restrictions on this allowance, inadequate though it is. For a reasonable funeral and headstone, one is talking about £1,000 and to refuse the heating allowance to those with more than £505 in savings is scandalous. I hope that the Minister will do something about it.
My hon Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made several points that should be mentioned again— for example, that about home help. The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has disappeared. He made an intervention and read from an obvious handout, but has not returned to the debate. He gave the number of home helps in his area, and if he has got the figure right, he is very lucky. The vast majority of us know that there is an appalling shortage of home helps in our areas.
Recently, I had to contact Age Concern because a lady in her 80s could not get a home help and, as a result, she could not have her weekly pension because there was no one to draw it for her. To its credit, Age Concern was able to help. As other hon. Members have said, many voluntary organisations do wonderful work in our communities. Home helps are vital for the elderly and disabled, and we have a long way to go in the provision of them.
The Minister quoted figure after figure, all of which sounded impressive, but, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said, those figures do not impress pensioners because they have to live with the day-to-day issues. For example, Members of Parliament are for ever fighting battles about hospital closures. In my constituency, and in many other areas, elderly people are being discharged from hospital far too quickly. I can name names of constituents who have been sent home too soon but have been told by the administrator at St. George's hospital, Tooting, that their neighbour or friend should keep an eye on them. It is an indictment of our day and age that elderly people at risk are discharged from hospital

long before they should have been, and without the proper back-up services when they need them, possibly more than at any other time.
Another problem is the rundown in the ambulance service. All of us—

Dame Jill Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have read the Order Paper carefully, and it seems to me that we can talk about health matters in the next debate rather than in this one.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to what is on the Order Paper.

Mr. Cox: I note your comment, Mr. Speaker, but, with great respect, I must point out that, while Mr. Deputy Speaker was in the Chair, we discussed these topics, and hon. Members who have spoken before me have made comments similar to mine. Elderly people are concerned not only about the amount of pension that they draw, but about many other issues that concern their standard of living within their community and their home.
We have a long way to go before any of us can be happy about the priority given to pensioners. As hon. Members have said, at the beginning of the debate there was an attempt to confuse the real issue by giving countless statistics. The tragedy for millions of people is that. if they are poor, they do not get adequate pensions to maintain the standard of living to which they are entitled. Until they do, there will be many problems for them to live with. When the Chancellor presents his Budget, whatever give-aways he may have, the greatest credit would come to the Government if the biggest give-away, in the form of realistic pensions, went to the retired people.

Mr. John Carlisle: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), reversing the roles at the time of my maiden speech, which was about pensioners. The hon. Gentleman was very kind to me at that time. The House listened with great interest to his speech and I know that he speaks with authority. This time he did not make the same speech as the one that he made eight years ago, but he made it with the same sincerity. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) that the figures bandied about in the House do not mean much to pensioners, but all hon. Members are at fault there and I am glad that in the last couple of speeches we have discussed the real problems that face our pensioners and the priorities of the elderly.
The hon. Member for Tooting said that hon. Members talk to pensioners' associations. One of my regrets is that pensioners' associations in my constituency do not always reflect the real needs of the pensioners. Too many times they get involved in political arguments far beyond the real need and the welfare of their members. Pensioners' associations would be well advised to take that into account in formulating future policies.
Inevitably, we heard the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) squealing about the Government's record. My hon. Friend the Minister of State put the hon. Gentleman right about various figures. Pensioners do not need friends like the hon. Member for Oldham, West and his party— the party that raised inflation to such an extent that pensioners' savings were deeply eroded. It is the party that gave pensioners a Christmas bonus and then had the gall to take it away. Now the Opposition are


making false promises which they know in their heart of hearts they cannot fulfil during the lifetime of a Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security was quite right when he said that it may well be that, on the sad day for Britain of a Labour Government being returned, they would implement immediately those promises. However, their record between 1974 and 1979 gives the lie to any promise that they make. It would cost an enormous amount of money and our taxpayers cannot afford it. The Opposition are fuelling false hopes among pensioners. That is cruel and will place pensioners in a desperate situation. My party and the Government take a realistic view about the growing burden on the public sector of pensioners and old people. We must welcome the fact that medical science has seen to it that old people live longer. The average age of the population is rising quite dramatically, and older people deserve and obviously need more expensive services. The burden on the public purse will increase dramatically towards the end of the century. I remind the House of a salient fact. There are more people alive today in the world than have ever died. We must remember that when talking about future pension policies.
I shall confine my remarks to the part of the motion about community care and residential homes. They are important and, as the motion says, an absolute priority for the elderly. My remarks are based on experience of visiting local authority homes in my own area during the eight years or so that I have been a Member of this House and during the previous four years when I was a candidate. Two obvious trends have emerged. First, the number of homes provided by local authorities and, more dramatically, those provided privately has grown.
Secondly—and this is an important point—the nature and character of the people in those homes is such that their increasing frailty has placed an enormous burden on the staff. In parts of my constituency residential homes have become almost nursing homes. The tragedy is that the members of staff who man them so ably are not trained as nurses and do not have the medical expertise to cope with the residents. Consequently, there is enormous strain upon the staff individually and in terms of the number required. Inevitably, there is also an enormous strain on the facilities that are needed. Because of the frailty of the residents, they need increasing and better facilities.
I am pleased to see in his place my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State. He will know that the report of Bedfordshire county council on the social services is still being compiled and has been brought to our attention. I shall quote briefly from that report. It talks about the trend in the condition of residents in these homes. It says:
Since 1978 there has been a growing conviction that residents have significantly increased in physical and mental frailty and hence in their dependence on staff for the normal functions of daily life.
As I say, that has come about because of the enormous growth in the population of the elderly because people are living longer. Secondly, and rather ironically, it has come about as a result of the increased and improved home care service which means that old people are staying longer in their homes. Of course we all support that, but when finally they have to go into a residential home they are far more frail than was the case in the past. There is a definite

message from the staff of these homes that the nature of the residents has changed and the staff is finding it increasingly difficult to cope. I should like to add my tribute to those paid to the staffs of those homes and especially to the staffs of the homes in my constituency. They are doing a magnificent job, sometimes under very difficult conditions.
There is a definite change in the situation and the Bedfordshire report says that the proportion of residents who are virtually independent of need has decreased since 1978 by about 85 per cent and that over the same period those partly dependent on need has decreased by some 77 per cent. Perhaps more significantly it says that the number of people who are now virtually totally dependent on staff has gone up by 75 per cent. That means that the members of staff have to give an enormous amount of time to the residents and in many cases they can ill afford that time. Incontinence, immobility, and the confusion of residents have risen dramatically—to such an extent that many residents need assistance just to get up in the morning and get themselves ready for the day ahead.
I repeat that residential homes have almost become mini hospitals or nursing homes, but they do not have the staff to cope. Various things ought to be done. First, we must all ensure that better use is made of the available resources. I am not necessarily calling for increased resources, because many county council social service departments could spend money better. My county council in Bedfordshire would be far better employed spending money to meet the needs of old people in residential homes than on making Bedfordshire a nuclear free zone or spending money on anti-apartheid campaigns.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West is wrong. It is not an increase in numbers of staff that we need. We must look at the quality of the staff who care for the patients in our residential homes.
We must encourage the private sector. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who spoke about sheltered accommodation. The private sector has mushroomed and the Government have had to take certain steps to ensure that the private homes are adequately and properly supervised and adequately funded.
I am glad to see in her place my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). I am reminded of the story that she told some years ago in a national newspaper about two patients in a residential home. One of them paid the full amount of £120 or £130 because she had saved throughout her life and had money in the bank. The other patient was her greatest friend, and her husband had messed about, spent all his money and died and left his widow penniless. Both those patients enjoyed exactly the same facilities. I think that the hon. Member for Rochdale raised this matter when he talked about a penalty on thrift. We have got to get this right. There is something wrong somewhere if those who have saved during their lives—that we want to encourage—are now penalised because they have money in the bank.
We must encourage the idea that elderly people must be able to be kept at home in comfort. Some form of tax assistance must be given to those who are willing to keep them. It is an enormous burden on a family for an old person to stay within that family. As much as the family might like to keep the old person with them, in some cases it becomes impossible. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give a little more


assistance by some form of tax concession to those who are willing to keep their old people with them. That would encourage people to do so.
I applaud the new moves by my own local borough council which is trying to turn one of our tower blocks into a block for old people. Right hon. and hon. Members know of the great difficulties we all have with tower blocks, especially Members such as the hon. Member for Tooting. Luton borough council is now trying to encourage pensioners to move into one of our tower blocks so that it can be used specifically for old people, with the necessary security and warden control. That sort of policy needs to be encouraged.
Old people require very little. They want to retain their independence, and we must respect that. Many of them want to stay at home, and, again, that must be respected. They want to retain their dignity. They do not want to receive bribes or free handouts which they feel that they might get as special, privileged members of society. They would rather stand on their own feet. Above all, they want comfort and security, and part of that security comes from low inflation so that they are encouraged to save, their savings are not eroded and, as the hon. Member for Tooting said, so that they can save for their funeral expenses, which is often a great priority in their financial independence.
I believe that the Government, by their policy and by the fact that we have retained and increased the pension well above the rate of inflation, thus increasing spending power, have treated pensioners extremely well. I believe, hope and know that they will give us a vote of confidence when the day comes. We deserve it, and they deserve our support.

Mr. George Howarth: One of the tests of any civilised society must be the extent to which the needs and aspirations of its elderly are looked after. By that standard the record of the Government is lamentable. I do not believe that they are meeting any of their basic obligations to elderly people.
In my constituency there are more than 8,000 pensioners, many of whom have nothing which in any way approaches a decent standard of life. I was going to try to deal with some of the technicalities of the statistics quoted earlier but time does not pemit that. However, it is sufficient to say that many of the pensioners in my constituency do not have much in the way of savings, nor have they been fortunate enough to receive the benefit of an occupational pension scheme. They do not perceive themselves to be well off at all. In fact, they perceive themselves, in relative terms, to have a declining standard of life.
The supply of suitable housing for elderly people has been raised by several hon. Members on both sides of the House. Again, I was going to deal with some of the statistics in my own borough and mention how the provisions, certainly in terms of capital resources through the Housing Corporation and the housing investment programme allocations, do not meet the needs identified by the local authority. Perhaps I can mention one good example of a scheme that is dealing adequately with the aspirations of a particular group of pensioners and that might be a model way of providing housing for many groups of pensioners in the future.
The Huyton Community Co-operative for the Elderly is a body that I played a small part in setting up. It is not in my constituency; it is in the neighbouring constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes). That co-operative has a two-phase programme. The first is providing 24 units of accommodation for elderly people at a total scheme cost of £750,000 and the second envisages building 35 bungalows. Those two phases are funded through the Housing Corporation and will meet the needs of the tenant-co-operators.
If anyone ever visits these schemes once they are completed, in many respects they probably will not look dissimilar from other straightforward housing association schemes. What is important is that the elderly people who are going to live there, who were nominated by the local authority, will, for the most part, have been involved in the scheme before the design was completed. They would have been involved with architects in drawing up the design for the scheme. That seems to be an eminently sensible way of providing housing for the elderly. For all we in this House and elsewhere may sympathise and feel strongly about issues affecting the elderly, it is they who know the difficulties they face in their everyday lives and it is they who know what design features would help to overcome them.
I now want to raise the issue of how elderly people are consulted and listened to about the things which affect their lives. Much as I accept entirely the manifesto laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), I believe that the involvement and representation of elderly people by elderly people has to be a significant part of any future programmes, whether we are talking about housing, pensions, health or whatever. I pay tribute to the National Pensioners' Convention, led by Jack Jones who is the president of that excellent body. He is the former general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union— [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but it Is important that people like Jack Jones with organisational skills should put those skills to work on behalf of other elderly people when they retire. That would certainly apply just as well to retired company executives.
It is crucial that pensioners are represented not just in this place and on local authorities, but in their own organisations which are manned and led by their own people. Once those organisations, whether locally, regionally or nationally, are in place it would be difficult, with the growing proportion of the population which is elderly, for any Government ever again to get away with the appallingly bad way in which this Government have treated the elderly.

Dame Jill Knight: In the true debating sense which does not always obtain in the House, I rise to respond to a speech made by my hon. Friend—I am not making a mistake when I say that— the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). Let us acknowledge that we all care about elderly people, and no one in the House wants to see poor old people who cannot feed, warm or house themselves properly. Let us instead, therefore, address ourselves to the difficulties, because the difficulties are very real.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale said that he wanted to abolish standing charges for gas and electricity


to help elderly people. Many people believe that the cost starts only when one turns on the tap. In fact, that is not so, because it costs money to make power or water available to one's house. Therefore, someone has to pay that money. When, after the hon. Member for Rochdale had said that the alliance's intention would be to cancel standing charges, I suggested that that would help everyone indiscriminately, whether they were wealthy or poor, he manfully faced the question and explained that he realised that it would cost a lot of money but that the money would be gained by increasing the cost of electricity. I want the House to know that the gas and electricity undertakings looked into that possibility and found that using a low amount did not necessarily mean a person was poor, because, for instance, many people with two homes, such as some of the holiday homes in Wales, use very little electricity, and they would benefit from that scheme. We all want to help pensioners and we must address ourselves to these real difficulties.
Many people will agree with my hon. Friend that it would be much better to increase pensions than to take 2p off income tax, and to that extent I agree with him. However, it would be better still to take more pensioners out of the tax bracket altogether because many people on pensions are paying income tax. That is what I should like to address myself to.
My final point is about penalising thrift. People used to save money for a rainy day, but they do not save it any more because the Government provide the umbrella. It cannot be right that the Government should pay for items with taxpayers' money— many taxpayers are poorer than the recipients—when the recipients themselves have enough money in the bank to pay for those items. I do not find it easy to meet that third difficulty either.
If only we would address ourselves across the House to solving those genuine problems, we could get somewhere.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: 1987 is a year for elderly people in Wales as it is the 40th anniversary of Age Concern Wales. Obviously, it is an appropriate time for this debate.
Demographic factors are ensuring that the position of pensioners will be a dominant political issue for the next decade. Between 1981 and 1996 there will be a 28 per cent. increase in the number of people over the age of 75. Between 1983 and 2001 there is a forecast increase of 73 per cent. in those over 85 on an all-Wales level. In my county of Gwynedd the number of those aged over 80 will increase from the 1985 figure of 8,782 to the 1996 projection of 11,117. Those are real people who will need real care. That is why we need to pay attention in this debate to our spending priorities for both pensions and the services that are important to those people.
As pensioners live longer beyond retiring age, their capital expenditure items, such as clothing, washing machines and painting the house, often become an increased cyclical burden. Pensioners must face them perhaps two or three times after they retire, which becomes a real burden because their savings are eroded as they grow older. That is a burden particularly for single household pensioners. In Wales 27·7 per cent. of all pensioners live in single households and in my constituency the figure is 33 per cent. That shows the extent of the burden. There is

a need to increase the resources available and, in particular, to give an extra differential to those in single households to meet those costs. There is also a need for a review of the benefits available.
I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister the mobility allowance for those over 75— we should not write them off and say that they have no right to mobility—and the death grant. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have drawn attention to the anxiety of many people about having enough money to pay for their funeral. As we all die, the state could bear a reasonable proportion of the cost of that.
The motion refers to services. Home helps and nursing services certainly need to be further developed to enable elderly people to remain in the community. Perhaps we need a new hybrid person who is a mixture between a home help and a home nurse to focus the attention and help that is needed. We also need more multi-disciplinary teams playing a crucial role where old people live. Perhaps there should be one such team for every general practioner area.
More thought is needed in constructing bungalows, sheltered housing and service flats about the needs of elderly people as demographic features change. We also need to look carefully at the joint planning and joint funding approach. Gwynedd area health authority recently told me:
The majority of frail elderly persons and their carers require support from both statutory agencies but the separateness of their organisational and management systems together with major differences in the priority and funding of services leads to a totally disjointed provision at the 'sharp end'.
We should take that message home.
I agree with the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) that we should listen to what elderly people have to say. At the last annual general meeting of Wales pensioners, 10 points were drawn up as a charter. I shall summarise them in headings. They are the substantial increase in the value of pensions; the abolition of standing charges; the linking of pensions with average earnings and the retail prices index; the amendment of the Social Security Act 1986, which is worrying many pensioners; improved health care facilities, which we shall debate later; local hospitals, which we shall debate later; the need to establish effective pensioner lobbies so that their voice is heard and people speak on their behalf; a retirement age of 60 for men and women; the cost of funerals to be borne to a greater extent by the public purse; and an end to discrimination against pensioners. Those 10 points made by pensioners should commend themselves to the House.

Mr. Derek Conway: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for the brevity of his remarks, which enables me to contribute to the debate. I am frequently tail-end Charlie on these occasions.
The House should pay tribute to the courage of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I took part in the debate on cold weather payments. The hon. Gentleman received such a mauling on that occasion, and has done so again this afternoon, by my hon. Friend the Minister and hon. Members that, if nothing else, one must recognise the courage of the man for coming to the Dispatch Box, albeit with inaccurate information.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) rightly said that pensioners do not want to hear about statistics, but want to live in the real world. But the fact remains, "by their deeds ye shall know them." During the time in office of the Labour Government, who were propped up by the Liberal party and the hon. Gentleman, who begged us to forget about the record of that Government, I was in local government and pensioners had their savings base eroded. They need to be reminded of the past. They cannot be allowed to forget it because there is nothing to stop the past returning. That is the lesson of history. If we return to a high-spending economy without earning it, pensioners will again lose their savings base.
The Minister reminded us, and it is as well to say it again and again to our pensioners, that after allowing for taxation and inflation between 1974 and 1979 when the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was a member of the Labour Government—yesterday he made this point to the Prime Minister and was subsequently corrected—pensioner incomes grew by 0·6 per cent. Under this Government that record is four and a half times better. Our achievement cannot be forgotten and pensioners must be constantly reminded of it.
The average net income of pensioners has increased from £68·50 in 1974 to £83·10 under this Government. That is twice the growth in income of the population as a whole. No hon. Member, certainly no Conservative Member, says to pensioners, "You have it easy and it is all coming your way" because we know that that is not the case. Pensioners want and deserve more.
As a young Conservative on an exchange to Austria I was struck by the respect extended by our continental cousins to the elderly parents of the household. They were regarded as the senior members of the household and were not shunted to one side. That made me think that we had a lot to learn from that society. Pensioners receive their dignity, not by relying heavily on the state, but by independence. That is why it was important for many elderly people to receive a second chance to buy their council home and to have the dignity of owning property. Those who experienced the war years when they were young did not have the means to buy their home, but they have subsequently been given that opportunity, which is important.
The service provided in private homes for the elderly is excellent and no more so than in my constituency. The homes that operate on a proper basis and have registered nurses providing proper care have audited accounts. It would be a big help if the DHSS paid those homes by cheque so that there was no longer an incentive for some of the less scrupulous operators to employ people on a black economy basis and to provide a less reputable service as a result. It is equally important that the planning constraints imposed by the Department of the Environment should he relaxed to allow for the building of more private developments for the elderly. Such developments, especially the recent one in my constituency called Carline Fields by Mercian Holdings, are popular. The one in my constituency is an excellent development for the elderly.
The debate has given us many issues to ponder. Although we accept that not everything is rosy, we cannot forget the past. If ever the spendthrift policies of the alliance and the Labour party are implemented, the problems of the past will return.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The elderly are a growing proportion of the population. It is expected that in 1991 more than 3 million people will be over 75 and that the number of those over 85 will increase from about 400,000 to 600,000. Those people are entitled to independence and dignity. Little respect was shown for either their independence or their dignity by the behaviour of some Conservative Members at the start of the debate. Frankly, it was disgraceful.
Retirement should, for the majority, be a time of opportunity. I welcome the campaign run by Age Concern called "Celebrating Age." It seems to select and to catch the right note. It is certainly a better note than the one that the Prime Minister struck when she spoke of the "burden" that the elderly represent on the working population. The Age Concern campaign draws attention to the resources that the elderly represent and reminds us that they are more likely than those in any other age group to be engaged in voluntary work. If the elderly are to have opportunities and are to be able to exercise them to the full, they need assistance and support.
There are a number of worrying tendencies in the development of policy under this Government. One has been the increased reliance explicitly on charitable care. Cuts in statutory provision have been accompanied by the encouragement and switch of financial support to the voluntary sector, although, as is the pattern with this Government, having cut financial support to the statutory sector, they follow it by cutting support to the voluntary sector. There has certainly been a switch of direction.
The EEC scheme for distributing food from the food mountains, with its direct use of charities, has used the avenue which the Government must surely understand is the most unfortunate one for that generation which rejects needing to apply for help as a basis for charity. A scheme which provides for charitable payment may be the type of scheme that replaces the present severe weather payments scheme. We know that such a replacement scheme will have to be brought in over the next few months because the existing one will disappear in April next year.
It is ironic that the present scheme debars those who have made savings from receiving any assistance with their fuel bills. A number of hon. Members have mentioned that. It is ironic, especially as the Government make such a point in their amendment about the value of pensioners' savings. Savings over a particular level debar people from receiving severe weather payments, as from receiving single payments for draught-proofing and from getting help with, for example, transfer from institutional to community care. In so far as the Government have taken the trouble to outline their proposals for the future, they see such help as may be available as more a charity than a right in the sense that the payments will be available only when DHSS staff decide those who have proven need. But the DHSS will not have the funds to help all those whose need is proven.
Social fund grants or loans for the elderly for transfer into the community will be available only after consideration has been given to whether the patient has saved money out of the benefit paid to him while in the institution and whether relatives, charities or other agencies could give assistance and, if so, how much.
Presumably, severe weather payments— if they are paid at all—will be on the same basis. It is instructive to


consider the likely cost of an adequate scheme—not the one that the Government have or are likely to introduce—such as the winter premium which we propose. We calculate that it will cost about £150 million. The Government have implied on a number of occasions that the money for such a scheme cannot be found. Of course, it could have been found even this year had the Government been prepared to divert the £164 million that they spent on marketing the sale of British Gas.
For more than a year, the Government have been promising to tell us what they intend to do about single payments for draught-proofing, which are due to disappear as well. The programme of energy conservation, which most hon. Members should welcome as being beneficial to pensioners and of benefit to public expenditure, is under threat because of cuts in the Manpower Services Commission's budget for the community programme. Ten thousand places have been lost and 35 planned schemes of draught-proofing are under threat. I suppose that that is at least consistent—short sighted, improvident, but at least consistent—with the fact that the Department of the Environment is cutting its scheme for insulation grants.
The Minister spoke enthusiastically about the Government's record. We shall have to read Hansard carefully to examine his statistics, since they bear out the experience of neither most pensioners nor most hon. Members—a fact that was clearly evident even in the speeches of Conservative Members.

Mr. Maclean: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.
The figures that the Minister cited managed to steer clear of the record on, for example, housing benefit cuts, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) referred. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been cut from that scheme, mostly to the disadvantage of pensioners and especially those on occupational pensions, which the Minister commended to the House.
The Minister implied that pensions not only were rising but would go on rising, as would the general income of pensioners. That was extraordinary. Indeed, I think that it comes into the category of misleading the House. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government's policy is to lower pensioners' expectations and ultimately to lower their pensions. The Government have made no secret of that.

Mr. Major: indicated dissent.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is clearly misinformed. It is explicitly the Government's policy to lower pensioners' expectations.

Mr. Maclean: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: The Secretary of State has made that clear. The hon. Gentleman was not present to hear what was said so perhaps he is not aware of that fact. The Government have cut the state earnings-relrated pension scheme and occupational pension schemes. They have reduced pensioners' likely expectations, whatever the quarter from which they draw their pension. The Minister had the nerve to boast of the increased pensions that people will draw from either the state earnings-related

pension scheme or the occupational pension schemes. He knows perfectly well that in the Social Security Act 1986 the Government reduced the likely increases in those pensions.
Attention has been drawn to the level of cuts. It is the Government Actuary's prediction, not ours— the Government have never questioned or contradicted it—that the fall in the basic pension and in the earnings-related pension will be so severe under the policies introduced last year by the Government that the total pension from both sources will fall below the level of the basic state pension alone. Against that background, it is extraordinary that the Minister should have boasted about the fact that people now do not have to live just on the basic state pension, because many are receiving pension supplements. We welcome those supplements, but the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government's policy will mean that pensioners will not even get their present pension levels.
The Minister skated over other aspects of the Government's policy— for example, the way in which heating allowances were abated for the first time ever by the available scale margin and the way in which the amount that the Government have been prepared to pay in heating allowances makes up for about a fifth of the sum that pensioners have lost because of the break in the link between pensions and earnings. The Minister skated over the way in which the costs that pensioners have to meet have increased because of the taxes that the Government have imposed on fuel.
The Government's policy— if hon. Members doubt this, I recommend that they read what happened in Committee on the Social Security Act, 1986—is, as the Secretary of State has stated repeatedly, to reduce the expectations of pensioners. The Government have already reduced their prospects by cutting all elements of pensioners' income, by their toleration of high levels of unemployment, which in themselves are bound to reduce future pension entitlements, and by their pressure, especially on the low paid, for people to take still lower wages, out of which people cannot possibly save towards their retirement. Under this Government, celebrating age will become more and more difficult for the majority of elderly people. We require different policies and a different Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): There is just one matter of common ground in this debate and that is that pensioners deserve a good standard of living in retirement. The issue is how to provide that good standard of living, how it has been provided in the past and how it should be provided in future. The Opposition have sought to criticise our record and they boast of their priorities. The fact is, they fail on both counts.
This debate has highlighted in stark terms the difference between the empty hopes and unfulfilled promises of state Socialism and the present Government's real achievements for pensioners over the past eight years based on sound economic policies and the control of inflation. One central truth illuminates the difference between the two systems. That truth is that living standards for pensioners have risen under this Government by more than 18 per cent. in real terms. They have risen twice as fast for pensioners as for the population as a whole and they have risen more


than four times as fast as the pitiful rate achieved by the previous Labour Government. Indeed, even to say that tends to exaggerate Labour's achievements.
The Labour Government made one big election promise between the two elections in 1974—to increase the single person's pension to just £10 in their first Budget. The Labour Government fulfilled that promise at the expense of the taxpayer and forthcoming inflation. The next five years brought little but a succession of unfulfilled hopes, broken promises, unpaid Christmas bonuses and the sad sight for pensioners of their savings of a lifetime being crippled by inflation.

Mr. George Howarth: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lyell: My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled has described the sorry catalogue. Pensions were to be uprated by the higher of earnings or prices increases. The Labour Government failed to do that in 1976, depriving pensioners of no less than £1·2 billion which the Labour Government simply could not afford to pay. The Labour Government twice failed to pay the Christmas bonus—in 1975 and 1976. For every year that Labour were in office, the value of pensioners' income from savings declined by 3·4 per cent. in real terms because runaway inflation had overwhelmed interest rates and pensioners had to live on their capital.
I want to emphasise one point. We may think that not many pensioners had savings. However, 71 per cent. of pensioners have incomes from savings. That 71 per cent. saw their income and that capital decimated by the Labour Government. In November 1978 the forecast increase in pensions once again fell short of the Labour Government's statutory obligation by 2 per cent. It was left to this Government to honour that commitment which Labour could not reach and which they were irresponsible to have given.
By contrast, under this Government, pensioners' incomes have steadily improved by an average of 2·7 per cent. a year. I notice that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) is in his place and he claimed that percentages can be confusing. I understand that. However, if we consider the matter in cash figures, and I give those cash figures in 1985 prices, things become clearer. Under the previous Labour Government, the average income for pensioners at 1985 prices managed to creep up over the whole of the Labour Government's period in office by a mere £2·10. During the period of this Government, simply from 1979 to 1985, pensioners' incomes rose by nearly six times that amount, by £12·50 a week, which is more than £600 a year. That is total net income and money in the pocket. That shows the real improvement that has been achieved by this Government.
The title of this debate is "Priorities for the Elderly". I want to say a few words about priorities because Opposition Members and others should be very clear on this point. Whether by design or incompetence—and I prefer to believe it is the latter, although I am not quite sure—the priorities of the leaders of the Labour party do not seem to be to help the poor. As we have explained many times, the poor pensioner will gain little or nothing from the promised £5 increase for single pensioners and the promised £8 rise for married couples, since it will almost all—and in many cases all—be clawed back by the means test. That is what the Labour party proposes. Despite being challenged time and again, neither the hon.

Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) nor the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has responded. They must know, even if they did not realise it when they made their promises, that unless they make corresponding increases for those on supplementary benefit, for widows, and the long-term sick and disabled, those groups will benefit little, if at all, from the increases. If those increases are made, the cost will be not £3·6 billion—which is all that the Labour party will have available, and I doubt whether it will have even that—but £5·6 billion.
The message from the Opposition is, "The poorer you are, the less you will benefit." What a reversal of priorities. It is precisely because of the empty nature of those promises that pensioners would be wise to learn the lessons of history.
This became a thoughtful debate when my hon Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) made some excellent points. Those tied in with the points made by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). I agree with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for outon, North about the importance of sheltered housing. Sheltered housing has been a priority under this Government and will continue to be so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon asked about the possibility of considering a different index. Certainly we will consider that point. However, it is interesting to note that the RPI is a great deal better for pensioners than the pensioners' price index. Over the period of this Government leading up to the last uprating, if we had uprated by the pensioners index as against the RPI, pensioners would have been £2·70 a week less well off. That is an important point to remember.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) referred once again to the 40p and 80p. That must be seen in the context of the fact that we are changing the system so that pensioners no longer have to wait so long for their increases. There have been small increases as a result of lower inflation. However, if we examine a 16-month period, the figures are £3·70 for a single person and £5·95 for a couple. That is a significant help.
I want to emphasise two comparisons. The first is the comparison of pensioners' income relative to that of the rest of society in this country, and the other is a comparison with Europe. It should be remembered that., because of the growth in occupational pensions, including SERPS, which we are paying on exactly the same basis until the end of the century, and because of the tremendous turn round in pensioners' incomes for savings, covering more than two thirds and approaching nearly three quarters of pensioners, pensioners' incomes have improved twice as fast as incomes for the population as a whole. Furthermore, under this Government, pensioners have moved out of the lowest 20 per cent. of earners to a significant extent. However, when the Labour party left office, 38 per cent. of pensioners were in the bottom one fifth of income earners. We have lowered that figure to 25 per cent. There has been a steady improvement for pensioners in the average earning levels across the board.
Sometimes comparisons are made with Europe. I emphasise that, taking the position as a whole, as the motion enjoins us to do, including total support for elderly


people and the services that they receive in the form of personal social services and residential and nursing home care, Britain is the third highest provider in Europe.
The facts disclosed in the debate should be a crushing blow for the confidence of the Opposition, and a heartening boost to the confidence of pensioners. The motion is ignorant and misleading. Our amendment shows the right way, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 273.

Division No. 101]
[7.0 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Eadie, Alex


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Eastham, Ken


Anderson, Donald
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fatchett, Derek


Ashdown, Paddy
Faulds, Andrew


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Flannery, Martin


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Barron, Kevin
Forrester, John


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Foster, Derek


Beith, A. J.
Foulkes, George


Bell, Stuart
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Freud, Clement


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
George, Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Blair, Anthony
Godman, Dr Norman


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gould, Bryan


Boyes, Roland
Gourlay, Harry


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hancock, Michael


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hardy, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Buchan, Norman
Haynes, Frank


Caborn, Richard
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Heffer, Eric S.


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell, Ian
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Home Robertson, John


Canavan, Dennis
Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howells, Geraint


Cartwright, John
Hoyle, Douglas


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clarke, Thomas
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Clay, Robert
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clelland, David Gordon
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Janner, Hon Greville


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Cohen, Harry
John, Brynmor


Coleman, Donald
Johnston, Sir Russell


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Kirkwood, Archy


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Lambie, David


Corbett, Robin
Lamond, James


Corbyn, Jeremy
Leadbitter, Ted


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Leighton, Ronald


Craigen, J. M.
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Crowther, Stan
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Deakins, Eric
Loyden, Edward


Dewar, Donald
McCartney, Hugh


Dixon, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dobson, Frank
McGuire, Michael


Dormand, Jack
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dubs, Alfred
McTaggart, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
Madden, Max


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Marek, Dr John





Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martin, Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Maxton, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maynard, Miss Joan
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Meacher, Michael
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, William
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Mikardo, Ian
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Milian, Rt Hon Bruce
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Soley, Clive


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Nellist, David
Stott, Roger


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Straw, Jack


O'Brien, William
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Parry, Robert
Tinn, James


Patchett, Terry
Torney, Tom


Pavitt, Laurie
Wainwright, R.


Pendry, Tom
Wallace, James


Pike, Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wareing, Robert


Prescott, John
Weetch, Ken


Radice, Giles
Welsh, Michael


Randall, Stuart
White, James


Raynsford, Nick
Wigley, Dafydd


Redmond, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Richardson, Ms Jo
Wilson, Gordon


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Winnick, David


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Woodall, Alec


Robertson, George
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rogers, Allan



Rooker, J. W.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Mr. Allen McKay and


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. John McWilliam.


Rowlands, Ted





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bruinvels, Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Bryan, Sir Paul


Amess, David
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Ancram, Michael
Buck, Sir Antony


Ashby, David
Budgen, Nick


Aspinwall, Jack
Bulmer, Esmond


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Burt, Alistair


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baldry, Tony
Carttiss, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Batiste, Spencer
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chapman, Sydney


Bellingham, Henry
Chope, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Churchill, W. S.


Benyon, William
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Best, Keith
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Colvin, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Conway, Derek


Blackburn, John
Coombs, Simon


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cope, John


Body, Sir Richard
Cormack, Patrick


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Corrie, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dicks, Terry


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Dorrell, Stephen


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dover, Den


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Robert


Brinton, Tim
Durant, Tony


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dykes, Hugh


Brooke, Hon Peter
Eggar, Tim


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Evennett, David


Browne, John
Eyre, Sir Reginald






Fallon, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Farr, Sir John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Hunter, Andrew


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Fookes, Miss Janet
Irving, Charles


Forman, Nigel
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Forth, Eric
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Franks, Cecil
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Freeman, Roger
Key, Robert


Fry, Peter
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Gale, Roger
King, Rt Hon Tom


Galley, Roy
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Knowles, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Knox, David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lang, Ian


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Latham, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Lawler, Geoffrey


Gorst, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Gow, Ian
Lee, John (Pendle)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Greenway, Harry
Lester, Jim


Gregory, Conal
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Lightbown, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Lilley, Peter


Ground, Patrick
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Lord, Michael


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Lyell, Nicholas


Hampson, Dr Keith
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Hanley, Jeremy
Macfarlane, Neil


Hannam. John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, Kenneth
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Harvey, Robert
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Haselhurst, Alan
Maclean, David John


Hawkins. C. (High Peak)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hawksley, Warren
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Hayward, Robert
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Madel, David


Heddle, John
Major, John


Henderson, Barry
Malins, Humfrey


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Maples, John


Hickmet, Richard
Marland, Paul


Hicks, Robert
Marlow, Antony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hill, James
Mates, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Mather, Sir Carol


Hirst, Michael
Maude, Hon Francis


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Holt, Richard
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hordern, Sir Peter
Merchant, Piers


Howard, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Miscampbell, Norman


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Moate, Roger


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Monro, Sir Hector





Mudd, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Murphy, Christopher
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Neale, Gerrard
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Needham, Richard
Speed, Keith


Nelson, Anthony
Speller, Tony


Newton, Tony
Squire, Robin


Nicholls, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Onslow, Cranley
Stern, Michael


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Ottaway, Richard
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Pawsey, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thurnham, Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Portillo, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Powell, William (Corby)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Powley, John
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Price, Sir David
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Raffan, Keith
Waller, Gary


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walters, Dennis


Rathbone, Tim
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Rhodes James, Robert
Wheeler, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitfield, John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Roe, Mrs Marion
Winterton, Nicholas


Rowe, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Ryder, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.



Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Silvester, Fred
Mr. Gerald Malone.


Sims, Roger

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put .forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House believes that pensioners deserve a good standard of living in retirement. whether their incomes come from state benefits, occupational pensions or savings, notes with approval that the Government's economic policies have reversed the previous sharp decline in the value of pensioners' savings; welcomes the higher level of expenditure on benefits for elderly people even after taking account of provision for one million additional pensioners since 1978; and congratulates the Government on its success in improving pensioners' living standards in both absolute and relative terms.

Health Care and Services for the Elderly

Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the failure of the Government to provide sufficient resources to enable the National Health Service and local councils to provide Britain's elderly people with the services they need, deserve and have paid for.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Dobson: We all know that a growing number of people in our country are living longer. Everyone should welcome that. In terms of history and geography, life expectation has been a measure of the prosperity of a society and can be safely used to compare our society with earlier times or with other contemporary societies, simply on the basis of how long people live. The judgment is usually—the longer, the better. Certainly that is most people's judgment for themselves, their relatives and friends, and so it should be for our country.
Nothing irritates me more than people who go on about the problems of people living longer and the problem of there being more old people. When it was mainly the well-off who lived for a long time, nobody said that it was a problem, even though some of them sponged on society for all of their lives. Therefore, I should like to know why it is described as a burden when it is ordinary people who are living longer.
What is needed for all the people who are living longer is a decent standard of life that can be enjoyed by all throughout their extended lives. That includes a reasonable and secure income, somewhere warm and decent to live, a sense of security, and the stimulus of company, together with the practical services that will help them to keep healthy and mobile.
Under this Government, the living standards of elderly people have not kept up with those of the rest of us—[Interruption.] Apparently, some Conservative Members were not listening to the earlier debate or they would have—

Mr. Tony Marlow: As somebody who was present during the two Front-Bench speeches in the previous debate, from which, I believe, the hon. Gentleman was absent, I remind the hon. Gentleman of two points that were made. First, his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was holding forth with out-of-date statistics. Secondly, the real living standards of pensioners have actually gone up more during the last few years than the real living standards of the population as a whole; and they have gone up considerably anyhow.

Mr. Dobson: What the hon. Gentleman asserts is palpably false. The standard of living of most elderly people in this country has not gone up in line with the standards of living of most of the rest of us.
Keeping warm and having somewhere to live has become more expensive and more difficult for many old people—

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way.
Crime and the fear of crime keeps many of our old people in what amounts to self-imprisonment, denying

them much of the company that they need and would enjoy. During the last two years of the Labour Government, in the years 1977–78 and 1978–79, crime fell by 4 per cent. If witless Conservative Members cannot remember that, perhaps they can remember that crime has increased by 50 per cent. under this Government, leading to damage to the health, welfare and practical living standards of many old people, because if one decides or chooses— if that is the right word— not to go out because of all those pressures, one's standard of living is considerably reduced.
The practical services to help elderly people to keep healthy and mobile have not expanded in line with their numbers and needs. Nor has there been any recognition of the need to extend those services so that the quality of life of the increasing number of elderly people may be improved.
To put things into perspective, we must remember that 95 per cent. of people over 65 live in their own homes and look after themselves, or are looked after by professional or voluntary carers. Some need help to do tasks that are simple for the able-bodied but difficult for them, such as getting in and out of bed or round and about their houses or flats. They may need such assistance when they want to get in or out. Those are simple tasks, but some of the tasks carried out by the professional carers are considerably more complicated and demanding.
Those services could be expanded but they are not being expanded in line with need, nor are there any significant plans nationally to improve the situation. There has been no increase in the number of community or district nurses devoted to looking after the elderly. There are no plans to do as the health visitors wish and to build up their role in providing continuing care and advice to elderly people in their areas.
One of the objectives, it is said, of the policies of all Governments is to try to make sure that as many elderly people as possible can stay in their own homes for as long as possible. But, because of the curiosities of the benefit system, there is now a financial incentive to be institutionalised in a private institution. Plainly, that runs contrary to the intentions of the Government and their predecessors in trying to keep people well looked after at home.
The Government have been keen to expand the provision of private residential care for the elderly, and some of the outfits that provide it are dubious. I shall not talk at length about such an expanding sector, save to point out that many of the private homes, good or bad—quite a few of them are bad—do not last long. It is estimated that about one in three proprietors of small private residential homes go broke or leave their businesses with heavy losses. When they do so, they often leave the residents in a bit of a state because there is no continuity of care.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman will nevertheless concede that many people live in private homes. That is where they expect to spend their twilight years. How does the hon. Gentleman think it helps their security when they read about the plans that the Opposition announced last week? They will be driven out of private homes because of the alterations that the hon. Gentleman's party will make to the social security payment. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that will contribute to the well-being of elderly people?

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman has obviously read The Sun's version of what we said last week, which is not likely to reach even to his low intellectual standards. We have given guarantees for any transitional arrangements that cover people in such circumstances. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, under the present system that he apparently strongly supports, roughly one third of smaller homes go out of business and leave old people bereft of any care or cover. If he is to attack what we suggest is an improvement, he should remember that he has a lot to defend on his own side.
A further problem is that, even now, in our medical schools, after the recognition by many people outside medical education of the vast increase in the number of elderly people, education in the treament and care of elderly people is not a major requirement, and it should be. The Department of Education and Science and the DHSS should do something about it. Many doctors who were trained years ago are certainly not well versed in dealing with the problems of the elderly. Many general practitioners, social workers and other people who are supposedly helping elderly people are not well aware of the provision available to help them. Last year, the Health Education Council produced a leaflet entitled "Who cares", but it did not reach many carers because its circulation was so low.
If we examine the basic services for the elderly that are provided by local councils, we see that the councils with the best records seem to be those most often vilified by the chairman of the Tory party, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). Of course, they are vilified and mocked also by his friends in the gutter press. Newcastle, St. Helens, Greenwich and Lewisham have three or four times as many home helps per 1,000 elderly people as Tory Surrey or Sussex east or west, Tory Barnet, which is represented by the Prime Minister, or, worst of all, the Liberal-controlled Isle of Wight. If we consider the number of meals supplied per resident over 65, the picture is much the same, with Islington, Haringey and Greenwich supplying three or four times as many as Tory Redbridge or Tory Barnet supply. Overall, between 1979 and 1984, the number of home helps has not kept pace with the number of people over 75, while the number of meals on wheels and luncheon club meals has fallen a long way behind.
Informal carers—family, neighbours and friends—need a lot more help if they are to keep on caring. All of us recognise the immense burdens that relatives and friends take on in trying to care for elderly people. We must recognise that, if they are to continue to carry out that difficult task, they need respite from it. We need respite care to give the carers a holiday. That requirement has been cut as the number of hospital and local authority beds available for elderly people is reduced.
When we consider the hospital service, we need to remember that many of the services that are used by the elderly are the same as those used by the rest of us. Care for the elderly cannot stop at the door of the geriatric ward. Indeed, 34 per cent. of patients over 65 are in acute beds—that is, just 1 per cent. fewer than the number of elderly patients getting specific geriatric treatment. Long hospital waiting lists and long waiting times for all sorts of treatment have as adverse an effect on elderly people as they do on the rest of us.
Some of the changes portrayed as improvements in efficiency do not seem to be so to an elderly patient. What

a newly appointed general manager logs as improved throughput can seem to an elderly patient like being shifted out of hospital too soon. I understand that some elderly people are referred to by health economists as bed blockers. To the persons concerned, it is simply a way of getting the attention that they need and, over the years, have paid for and have a right to expect.
The recent increasing problems that hospitals encounter in coping with emergencies hit old people in two ways. Frequently, they are the people who need emergency treatment and for whom it is hard to find a bed. They are also among those who cannot get into hospital because their planned admissions are not possible as beds are full of emergency cases. They are caught out both ways. In case anyone denies that this is happening, I shall quote circumstances that have arisen at the Royal Free hospital in Hampstead. It was recently reported:
Two 80-year-old patients, who had both suffered strokes, had to wait 25 hours and 14 hours respectively … before beds could be found for them at the Royal Free hospital … the one waiting longest lying on a trolley in a corridor.
… a 79-year-old woman with peritonitis … had to wait four hours in casualty before a bed could be found for her in the Coronary Care Unit, and an 84-year-old woman … had to be placed in an obstetrics ward.
That is a bit late for an 84-year-old. It was further reported:
Admissions from the waiting list for surgery had come 'virtually to a standstill' and patients were being discharged"—
as the consultant described it—
before they were fit, to make room for others.
Specialties like dermatology and rheumatology"—
both of which heavily affect old people—
could not admit patients from the waiting list at all".
This very day, I received a letter telling me what had happened about closures of the Brook general hospital and the Greenwich district hospital to all cold admissions because they were overwhelmed with emergencies. On nine occasions between 19 and 23 January 1985 and in February 1986 that has occurred at Brook general hospital. It has happened twice at the Greenwich district hospital within the same period. That meant that predominantly old people, particularly emergency cases, were filling beds and that other people had to be turned away. When there is difficulty in finding beds, there is usually a long delay before treatment can be given.
That picture is repeated all over the country, from Barnet to Birmingham. Certain specialties that are available to us all but that are of particular interest to old people frequently command little public attention, or they are not very fashionable in the medical profession. Consequently, they are not well provided for. Rheumatology is a good example. Twenty million people suffer from rheumatism. Some of them are young. many are middle aged, but even more are elderly. Yet about 30 health authorities or health boards in England, Scotland and Wales do not have a single, solitary consultant rheumatologist. Health authorities such as Warrington, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Bolton, Bury, Milton Keynes and North Tyneside do not have a rheumatologist. Twice as many health authorities were described by the Arthritis and Rheumatism Council as being grossly deficient in their provision of specialist rheumatology services.
Recently the National Association of Health Authorities warned that the National Health Service faces a serious and growing shortage of occupational therapists and chiropodists who play a big part in helping, for


example, stroke victims to recover and in helping to keep elderly people mobile. The NAHA report said that the demand for those services already outstrips supply and that we need 70 per cent. more occupational therapists and 30 per cent. more chiropodists to get us into the 1990s. The latter estimate is lower than the DHSS study, which said that 35 per cent. more chiropodists are needed.
There are other perturbing developments in the philosophy of the National Health Service under this Government. The measures of quality of life that have been canvassed in some quarters seem to carry with them the assumption that life after 65 does not have quite the importance of life before that age. That may be because health economists would like us to come into existence, fit and well, at 21 and to die suddenly on our 65th birthday without requiring medical treatment in between. That is the beau ideal human being for the health economist. Fortunately—I think that it is "fortunately"—humanity is not built like that. We are an awkward lot, and a lot of people get a bit more awkward as they grow older. People want to live for a long time and to receive proper health care both at home and in hospital. We want top quality health care from the cradle to the grave and we want that period to last a long time.
We owe that quality of service to the older generation. It is worth saying that the older generation to which I am referring is a rather special older generation. It is the generation that defeated Hitler. There are old men who once ran up the Normandy beaches, or fought in north Africa, or worked on the Burma railway. There are many, many more old women, some of whom lost their husbands at that time.
More than once I have been asked by the leader of our party to represent us at the Cenotaph ceremony for war widows. It struck me, as I stood there among women in their sixties and seventies, that the men they were remembering were not 60 or 70. They were strapping 20-year-olds or 25-year-olds—young men in the prime of their lives who sacrificed their lives for this country. Women, including those who were not widowed, made many sacrifices. They survived the blitz and they brought up the generation that, generally speaking, fills this Chamber and this country today. They are a special generation.
Those people are even more special, because when this country emerged from the darkest period in its history, absolutely flat broke, the self-same men and women had a vision. Their vision was that we should create a National Health Service that would provide the best health care available for everybody—rich or poor, man or woman, wherever they lived. The country was flat broke. Now that those self-same people are older, they are faced by a Government and, to some extent, by a news media who say that, although we are now one of the richest societies the world has ever known and producing more oil every day than Saudi Arabia, we must tighten our belts and must not expand the provision for these people who have done so much for our country. It would be a national disgrace if we failed to do our duty by not expanding the services that they need, deserve and have paid for.
The Opposition believe that very deeply. That is why we have put down this motion and why we are determined, both in this House and outside it, to struggle to ensure that the elderly in our society are looked after in the way that

they expected to be looked after when they fought, struggled and secured the establishment of the National Health Service and in the way that we look forward to being looked after when it is our turn. That is only fair and decent, that is what we are in favour of, and that is why we have put down this motion.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'congratulates the Government on the steps it has taken to facilitate and prolong the health and independence of elderly people; welcomes its provision for the increasing proportion of elderly and very elderly people in the population; notes the substantial increase in health care of elderly people in hospitals and in the community; and applauds the Government's success in helping elderly people to improve their quality of life.'.
The one matter upon which, from what I have heard so far in this debate, we shall agree is that this is an important debate about one of the major challenges that is facing the National Health Service. It is three years since the House last had the opportunity to debate specifically health care and services for the elderly. That is surprising, perhaps, as we estimate that more than 40 per cent. of the present expenditure on the hospital and community health services relates to people who are aged over 65.
To echo something that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, or to give additional figures, between 1985 and 2025 the number of people over pensionable age in England and Wales is expected to grow by nearly 3 million. Within that total, the number of those aged 75 and over, who are obviously the most likely to be in need of services, will grow by about 1·6 million. There can be no doubt, therefore, about the importance of the subject that we were discussing, the importance of the services that the National Health Service provides for the elderly, and the growing demand that there will be for those services.
Beyond that, I have very little in common with the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric, with his facts and figures, or with his suggestions about the way in which the health services have been moving and developing. I want to spend a moment or two on the figures relating to the Health Service and to pick up not only what underlay what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, but also what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said more specifically in his speech earlier today—which I regret I was unable to be present to hear—and also in his statement that was reported in some of today's newspapers—which, almost equally, to my regret, I have been able to read. I will pick out only the most glaring errors.
First, so far as I can judge, the figures which he says relate to expenditure on the National Health Service do nothing of the kind. They are plainly wrong. They exclude entirely the hospital building programme, which is now running at nearly £1 billion a year, and the family practitioner services, which are running at nearly £5 billion a year and which are of particular importance to many elderly people. Both those elements, which the hon. Gentleman appears to have ignored in his statement, have increased by about 36 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79.
Secondly, in the table at the back of the statement which he issued yesterday he appears to have assumed that demographic trends, principally the self-same rise in the


number of elderly people, have required an annual expenditure increase of 1 per cent. each year throughout the period just to stand still. That, too, is completely wrong. As the detailed figures provided to the Select Committee on Social Services last year showed, the demographic effect for most of the period in question was substantially less than 1 per cent. Those two errors alone mean that the hon. Gentleman's figures are not worth the paper on which they are written, so far as I can judge.
What is almost as bad as these basic errors is the thoroughly misleading way in which even these figures were presented. Again I shall take only the most significant points. First, they seem to take no account whatever of the improvements in efficiency which have taken place, often as a result of the Griffiths management reforms. Over the past three years that factor alone has meant some £400 million extra for patient care. In the current year about £150 million is expected to be released in that way. I emphasise that that is money being made available for patient care that would previously have gone in another direction.
Secondly, when the hon. Member for Oldham, West talks about the number of beds, he takes no account whatever of the changes in the pattern of care not only of the more efficient use that is being made of beds, but of the shift towards care in the community for many thousands of mentally handicapped and mentally ill people whom everyone agrees ought not to have been in hospital at all. I have made the point to him before that I find it little short of deplorable that, on my assessment, he includes in his figures for cuts in the provision of hospital beds the beds that have been removed because mentally handicapped children are not in long-stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped on the scale that they were before, which all of us have been seeking to bring to an end.
Perhaps the most glaring omission from what the hon. Gentleman has been saying is the absence of any reference to what went before. When he talked of the reduction in beds, why did he not tell us that the annual reduction was greater under Labour between 1974 and 1979 than it has been since this Government came to office? When he talked about waiting lists, why did he not tell us that the lists are 80,000 lower than those left behind by the Labour Government?

Dr. John Marek: That is misleading and a misrepresentation.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) can make his speech later. It is a fact that the waiting lists are nearly 80,000 lower than when this Government came to office. Those lists were left behind by the hon. Gentleman's Administration.
When the hon. Member for Oldham, West purported to deplore that Britain spends what he claims is an inadequate 5·5 per cent. of GNP on health, why did he not tell us that when Labour left office that figure was only 4·8 per cent.? In other words, the proportion of GNP that is being spent on health has risen substantially under the present Administration.
The fact is that the way in which the hon. Gentleman is using health statistics is in danger of going beyond a joke to being a disgrace.

Mr. Michael Meacher: As the hon. Gentleman has chosen to use this debate to make a

slanging attack on something that has obviously nettled him greatly, may I answer his points? First, the figures are all based on Government figures. They are hospital and community health services figures. If one were to take gross NHS revenue expenditure, I suspect that the difference would be minimal.
Secondly, the figures do riot include efficiency savings, as the Government call them, although I suspect that is a euphemism for cuts. Anyway, £150 million out of the £18 billion NHS budget means that that again is a footling qualification.
Thirdly, of course, we support the movement of mentally ill and mentally handicapped patients back into the community, but in the acute sector there has still been a cut of 10 or 11 per cent. That accounts for most of the 36,000 beds that have been cut since 1979. So none of what the hon. Gentleman has said alters the basic truth of the points that I was making on their record on the Health Service since 1983 in particular.

Mr. Newton: All I can say is that last night I read the hon. Gentleman's statement carefully. The table at the back, on which much of the rest of it is founded, with some wrong assumptions about demographic patterns which I shall not go into again, is clearly headed:
Percentage change each year in total NHS expenditure.
The hon. Gentleman has just said that it is not that; it is hospital and community health services expenditure. The difference between the two is billions, not just peanuts. Expenditure on the primary care services, which are of particular importance to many elderly people, has more than doubled in money terms in that period. It has risen by about one third in real terms and that has led to a sizeable expansion in the services themselves, on which I shall comment. I do not mind in a sense what the hon. Gentleman does with statistics so long as he uses them clearly, knows what he is talking about and presents a fair picture. I object to statistics which purport to be something which they are not, and which are calculated to mislead the public and to distort real debate about health issues.
There are two plain and simple facts about the totality of NHS expenditure. One is that total expenditure has risen by 26 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1986–87, and will rise again next year. The other is that within that total we are carrying through the biggest sustained drive to modernise the country's hospitals that has ever been seen, and that is now well on the way to undoing some of the damage done by the drastic cuts—real cuts, not statistical illusions—that were imposed by the Labour Government in 1977 and 1978. In one year alone the hospital building programme was cut by 22 per cent. when the Labour party was in office.

Mr. Dobson: Is it part of the drive to improve the efficiency of the National Health Service that the cardiothoracic theatres and wards at the Brook hospital in Greenwich closed at the beginning of this week because the health authority cannot afford to run them until the start of the new financial year?

Mr. Newton: The position in Greenwich, as in many other health authorities, is that the health authority is actively seeking ways of making sure that it uses its resources to the best effect. The hon. Gentleman implied in his speech that the regional health authority was attempting to get the district to close Brook hospital.

Mr. Dobson: I never said that.

Mr. Newton: It certainly came across to me as the implication of what the hon. Gentleman was saying. I want to make it clear that the district health authority is conducting a review of the acute services and that the outcome of that is far from clear.
The most important point about the Health Service is that, in the end, it is to be measured not by the amount of money it has or by the number of beds in its buildings, any more than by the number of doors or windows in its buildings, but by the people it treats, the care it provides and, as my right hon. Friend emphasised in his widely welcomed statement today, increasingly by what it does to prevent avoidable illness occurring in the first place. By that measure of patients treated and care provided, the NHS is by any standards not a service which is being cut, let alone a service in decline, but one of sustained expansion.
Between 1978 and 1985 in-patient cases rose by very nearly 1 million, or about 18 per cent. Day cases rose by 400,000, which represents an increase of over 70 per cent. Out-patient attendances were up by 3·5 million, or 10 per cent. The growth in 1985 alone was 176,000, or nearly 3 per cent., in in-patient cases, 60,000, or nearly 7 per cent. in day cases, and 398,000, or 1 per cent., in out-patient attendances. Those increases have been more than enough to match the growing number of elderly people and they represent a real improvement in services.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred to staffing in hospitals and within the increasingly important community services. In both those areas there have been substantial increases. The number of district nurses in community health services has risen by 18 per cent. The number of hospital nurses caring for geriatric patients has risen by 22 per cent. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned chiropodists—and that staff has increased by nearly a quarter. The number of consultant geriatricians has increased by over a third. There is no pattern of decline.
I wish to give some figures for primary care services, which the hon. Gentleman appears to have entirely ignored, despite the fact that for most people their interface with the Health Service is the general practitioner rather than the local hospital. Compared with 1979 there are 3,500 more GPs, an increase of 15 per cent., 13,000 more support staff in general practice, an increase of nearly 40 per cent., and about 2,500 more dentists, an increase of 20 per cent. There are 1,500 more nurses, whole-time equivalents, specialising in mental illness, and that represents an increase of well over 100 per cent. I could go on.
This is a story not of decline but of expanding services in the areas of most importance to many elderly people. The next line of argument advanced by the Opposition may be to claim that those increases do not match the number of elderly or very elderly. Let me make it clear that between 1978 and 1984 the number of hospital treatments provided for people over 75 per 10,000 of that population has increased from 1,736 to 2,057. Thus, an increased amount of treatment is being provided for those in the very elderly age group. It is a question not of increased treatment being outmatched by the growing numbers of the elderly, but of a real improvement in services.
The fact that the hon. Gentleman persistently wished to disguise or run away from is that more elderly people

than ever before are receiving hospital treatment. More elderly people are able to take advantage of the opportunities provided by modern medical technologies and skills to improve the quality of their lives. Whether or not we discuss quality adjusted life years—QUALYS—many of the things that we are discussing improve the quality of life for elderly people. That is why we want to see those services increased and have devoted our attention to achieving that objective.
Let me take two obvious examples that particularly benefit elderly people. The number of cataract operations rose from 38,000 in 1978 to 55,000 in 1984. We have set a target of 70,000 a year for 1990. Hip replacements rose from 28,000 a year in 1978 to 38,000 in 1984. We have set a target of 48,000 a year in 1990. [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Wrexham is complaining about. Does he or does he not want an increase in those important operations for elderly people, to whom they make a great deal of difference?

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The hip replacement is a comparatively new operation, and of course such operations will increase. I do not mind giving credit for the fact that at least the Tory Government have not refused to allow such operations, but the waiting lists for those operations are getting longer. However, I object to the Government claiming credit for the advance in medical science and the maintenance of standards of service because of that advance.

Mr. Newton: No one is claiming credit for the advance in medical science. We claim credit for the fact that, far more than the Labour party, we have made it possible for elderly people to benefit from those advances. We have every intention of ensuring that elderly people continue to benefit.
So far I have concentrated on health services, especially hospital services, for elderly people. However, 95 per cent. of elderly people live at home and, like most of us, can expect to spend only short periods in hospital or, indeed, in any kind of institutional care. Most of them want—and we wish to help them in this respect—to be able to stay and be cared for in their homes. That involves a wide range of agencies, statutory, private, voluntary and informal. Undoubtedly, the key to success to ensure that that community care takes place is proper co-ordination between the agencies and the individuals involved. We have devoted considerable extra sums of mony to that in the form of joint finance and improved machinery in the form of joint planning. The changes in joint planning and the involvement of voluntary organisations in that planning have helped to create better co-ordination. There have been some significant and important effects.
Personal social services manifestly have an important role. Since the Government came to office, spending on personal social services has increased by over 20 per cent. in real terms. The key indicators of service provision have also increased. For instance, there are 14 per cent. more home help staff, and the number of places in day centres has increased by over 15 per cent.
I was puzzled by the reference to home helps made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, because today I answered a question tabled by the hon. Member for Oldham, West on the number of home helps expressed as whole-time equivalents per thousand population aged


65 years and over in the three years from 1982 to 1985. I use those three years because they were the ones that the hon. Gentleman asked about.
I thought I heard the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras refer to Greenwich. In the period 1982 to 1985 the number of home helps per thousand population aged 65 years and over in Greenwich has risen from about 11·5 per cent. to more than 13 per cent. If one considers England as a whole during those three years—the figure not only represents the total number of home helps, but that figure expressed per thousand of the population aged 65 years and over—there has been an average increase from 6·7 per cent. to 7·2 per cent. Where are the cuts? Where is the great story about the dimunition in the provision of important services? Wherever one looks one finds that the picture painted by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras does not stand up to reality in virtually every part of the country.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister recognise that if it was not for the very councils that he, his party and especially the chairman of the party constantly denounce for wasting money and providing services there would not be a jot of increase in services? If, in London, we had to rely on services provided by Sutton, Bexley, Redbridge, Barnet or Bromley, there would be no increase in services.

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I may say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I am not sure that I have been denouncing the London borough of Camden, to which he is so dedicated, for wasting money. I rather thought it was denounced by an independent report that the council had commissioned.

Mr. Dobson: Following the courageous decision of the Camden council to set up an independent inquiry and to publish it immediately it was received—unlike virtually any document that the Government receive—will the Minister confirm that the independent report said:
The Department (DHSS) has statutory inspectorial duties and the periods between inspections seem to be of an unacceptable duration.
The report continued:
Some of the issues raised in this report would have been identified and possibly dealt with earlier had the Department exercised its statutory duty.

Mr. Newton: If it is the hon. Gentleman's view that the London borough of Camden can only be expected to run its services in a remotely acceptable way with the social services inspectorate permanently breathing down its neck, he may be right, but I would regard that as a proud claim on behalf of Camden.
This is an important, short debate, in which a number of hon. Members wish to take part. We have been discussing one of the great challenges that face not just the NHS but the whole community. It undoubtedly presents problems. Of course, there is a need for continued development of policies to overcome those problems and to meet needs still more effectively. In a variety of ways that is precisely what we are seeking to do. They include, not least, the review that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked Sir Roy Griffiths to undertake on the ways in which public funds are used to support community care.
No one who studies the facts of the expansion of services for the elderly that the Government have brought about can vote for the motion tonight. No one who studies

the Opposition's mixture of bogus statistics and half-baked promises would vote for them at any other time either.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Quite rightly, I must address myself to the statement just made by the Minister. I must consider what I should recommend my colleagues to vote for. I looked carefully at the motion and the amendment when they were made available.
The fallacy of the Government's amendment is that although, for example, more money has been spent in the Health Service on the elderly, although there has been new provision, although new initiatives have been taken, and although there has been greater throughput, to use the clinical word, these have not taken into account the relatively enormous and growing proportion of the demand on our Health Service and on our other services which is caused by the increasing number of elderly people in our community.
I remind the Minister of what her right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) said in 1983 when he was wearing his other departmental hat:
central Government concluded last year that a minimum expenditure growth of 2 per cent. was needed to maintain existing standards of service in the face of growing numbers of the very elderly and other increasing pressures."—[Official Report, 15 February 983; Vol. 37, c. 135.]
When I look at the issue in the round, I allege that the failure of which the Government have been guilty since 1983 is in having committed themselves only to the minimum real growth in expenditure that is their responsibility in managing the public purse and that is needed to maintain the standard of health care provision for the elderly. It is the Government's greatest failure that the figure that they set and defined for themselves as being necessary has not been fulfilled in reality.
There has been a bit of double talk since then because the Government have since argued that a 2 per cent. growth in services is necessary, not a 2 per cent. real growth in expenditure. The Minister will know that that 2 per cent. growth in services requires slightly less real growth in expenditure because one can make efficiency cuts, and so on. I think that we are on common ground in that.
The argument should not be—I would never make it—that simply putting money into a service necessarily improves it. That is always fallacious. None the less, the substantial deficit in funding, which is the burden of the Labour party's motion, has prevented the sufficient development of the care services, which I hope everybody in the House will admit we need. I should like to develop some of the relevant points.
I shall start with one or two statements of principle that people do not always bear in mind, in relation to the elderly. We are talking in general about health care services for people over 60. It is easy to conclude, and for the public perception to be, that old age in itself is a disease, brings problems and requires expenditure, but it is not true that just because somebody is old he or she need be ill. That does not necessarily follow. Indeed, Lord Shinwell was perfectly well until within a few days of his death, to take a topical example from this building. Old age is a triumph, not a problem. The objective of the state's services should be to enable people in their old age to make


as much of their opportunities as they can. Often, people have not had many opportunities for several years before by virtue of their working life, family responsibilities and so on. It is an insult to presume that old people are ill people, because many old people are not ill. Clearly, they become more frail as they grow older, but they do not necessarily become ill.
It must be admitted that as people get older the relative cost to the Exchequer of their illnesses grows. The most recent figures that I have are for 1983–84. National Health Service expenditure in England per head for the 16 to 64 age group, which is not covered by the debate, was £150, whereas expenditure for people over 75 was over £1,000. Rightly, we shall have to face the fact that the demand for expenditure on the elderly will increase enormously.
Over the 20-year period beginning at the end of the last year, the population aged over 75 will increase by 10 per cent. from 3·7 million to 4·1 million. The population over 85 will increase by a staggering 54 per cent., from 700,000 to 1·1 million. We must make sure that we plan the commitment to meet the inevitable bills that will accrue to the Health Service and the inevitable demands that will be made on our personal social services, given the size of this growing part of our population.
I should like to consider another general presumption. In this debate we need not go into every corner of the issue. It is often a failure of our health and social services that elderly people are incorrectly diagnosed as being mentally ill. The Minister may have seen the example in New Society on 12 December last year of an elderly man being diagnosed as having dementia when he had a severe heart problem, which was confirmed when he was admitted to hospital.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): indicated assent.

Mr. Hughes: I see the hon. Lady accepting that.
Often there is a presumption that old people have certain types of condition. The presumption is based on something of which we lay people may be guilty, but of which the medical profession never should. It is an ageist approach, based on the presumption that elderly people are more likely to suffer from such conditions. As everybody in the House will know, the vast majority of elderly people do not suffer from dementia in any way. Under 5 per cent. of people over 65 have a severe impairment of memory, intellect, orientation or personality. About another 3 to 5 per cent. have milder forms of dementia. Although dementia in its general definition is a problem of advancing age, 80 per cent. of those over 80 have no form of it.
Often old people suffer from an incorrect perception of their need. Of course, 20 per cent. of elderly people suffer from some form of mental disability or dementia, which is a tragic condition. Alzheimer's disease is the most common. I challenge the frequent automatic assumption that the elderly in our community are a general problem for the Health Service, or a specific type of problem, that they are incapable of managing themselves as human beings.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Will the hon. Gentleman make this plain when he talks about senile dementia? Unfortunately, most of the public think that the

clinical term "dementia" has something to do with people being demented. It means nothing of the sort. It means merely a loss of memory in various degrees.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right. That is another example of a conclusion drawn from a false analysis. Clinicians will define that condition, but it might not be as grave or problematical as the common assumption would have it. I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
Another issue is as much to do with social services as with the Health Service. As people get older, they suffer physical disability. For example, one third of those over 85 cannot get upstairs. About one fifth are bedridden or housebound. Social and welfare provision must respond to those facts in the way in which the community cares.
The Secretary of State made an announcement today, which I welcomed, on cancer and on AIDS, all of which are, to a substantial degree, preventable illnesses and diseases. Many of the illnesses from which old people suffer are preventable. Tragically, many old people die from diseases that we could do something about.
The preventative arm of the Health Service is as applicable to the elderly as it is to much younger people. We must work to avoid the problems of heart disease, cancer, strokes, bronchitis, diabetes and incontinence. Those illnesses can, in different ways, be treated early and cured. A topical example, which occurred this winter, is hypothermia. If we manage our communities properly there is no need to have nearly so many deaths from hypothermia, as I am sure the Minister will accept. Our European neighbours in colder countries do not have as many deaths from hypothermia. The problem of hypothermia cannot be solved at a stroke; it is not just a matter of health and social service provision but of homes insulation, educating people to look after themselves, and giving them the proper provision. A proper approach to preventive medicine, health care, and health education will reduce the burden on the Health Service.
Another area of common agreement is that we must all try to make a reality of the commitment of Government and Opposition parties to community care wherever possible. I shall take a topical example, which applies to the acute services as well as to properly defined community care services. The local small cottage hospital in my constituency, St. Olave's hospital, was recently closed, as the Minister knows. The closure meant not just a loss of beds from a local hospital, but the loss of the feeling that people were being treated in their community, even though they were in a hospital bed. They went to a large regional hospital where they felt more isolated. There must of course be acute services for the acutely ill, and we do not want to keep people unnecessarily in beds in hospitals for the acutely ill. The strategy must be to plan for, and meet the demand with, care in the community services.
One criticism which applies equally to my health authority of Lewisham and north Southwark, and to Camberwell—for which I am in part responsible—is that the strategy is not yet being matched by the provision of service. Everybody has agreed that we should have care in the community, for example, by removing the mentally ill from residential care in horrendous Victorian long-stay institutions, but we do not yet have the facilities to cope with them at home. Without the commitment to that, which needs to be planned, care in the community is, to many people, still a mirage and not a reality.
One of the beliefs that I stand for, and to which I commit myself and my colleagues—it is not a cheap option—is properly funded care in the community. It has three elements in terms of professional support for the elderly. First, we must have the doctor in the community. There is still a weakness in proper GP provision, particularly in the inner cities, where the elderly are often concentrated. I hope the Government will seriously consider—they have taken up many of the recommendations made by Age Concern and others over the years—building up training and the appropriate level of service capability for GPs and staff in health clinics and centres so that they will be able to deal in the community with many of the problems and needs of the elderly.
The second matter, on which we have had a lobby today, relates to the nursing profession. The Cumberlege report and the general pattern of recommendations from the Royal College of Nursing and others is that we should train people for a new nursing profession—not the old bedside Florence Nightingale nursing, but a much more adaptable community nursing provision. That gives enormous potential and enormous possibilities for people to be looked after and visited at home. I wrote to the Minister about nurses being able to prescribe at a day centre in my constituency. She replied that a pilot scheme was being looked at. I hope that we can progress quickly down that road—although we must have safeguards—so that health care practitioners, at the appropriate level, can administer that health care in the community. There is every opportunity to secure that as each health authority develops its strategy.
One of the encouraging signs is that we have been able to agree to develop in Lewisham and north Southwark a combination of facilities. One is for respite care on the health authority site at St. Olave's hospital where elderly people who are cared for by relatives day after day can go so as to give their relatives a week or two off. The other facility is a small domus-type institution where small numbers of people can form their own communities. These are much more personal than the old geriatric or psycho-geriatric wards in big and impersonal hospitals. There is a problem in delivering enough of those services quickly. Those sorts of things show where the will is and whether the service can be delivered.
The third group is the people who are not trained at all, or who are not trained professionally as doctors or nurses. I sincerely ask the Government urgently to think about requiring a payment of, and validation for, carers who are not doctors or nurses. We need the home helps, the visitors, the people to provide laundry services for the elderly. We need them all, and many are willing to work in the caring service. Relatives, neighbours, friends, part-time and full-time, a small number of hours a week or many, youngsters and older people, all are willing to be the complimentary, substantial band of practising supporters of the elderly. In that way we can keep our elderly in the community, and they can feel reassured. I hope that the Government will develop that area.
I hope that the Government will respond positively to the requirements on general practitioners. I hope that they will respond positively to developing community nursing services and to the RCN paper at the end of the consultation period. I hope that carers can see that the Government will be committed to them and to funding them, so that we will be able to maximise that third group of people in support of and to help the elderly.

Mr. Newton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that almost every one of the thoughts that he has uttered in the last five minutes are thoughts that have been actively raised by the Government in the course of the primary care consultation, our own Green Paper and the Cumberlege report, and by the positive response in the direction of consultation that we have already shown to Project 2000 and by work which I am sure he knows is going on in the Department about support assistance for nurses. I can tell him, as he already knows, that we have been acting positively in the ways that he mentioned.

Mr. Hughes: I want to end on something that has a slightly harder edge than that. The most acute problem is that, as yet, there is not proper co-ordination of the services that try to fulfil. Health Service requirements. For example, in my local health authority there are still massive waiting lists. The figures have gone up 260 per cent. since 1983. On 31 March 1986 more than 8,000 people were waiting. That applies not just to old people, but to all people. The other day an elderly man presented himself at a hospital for a bed, was told that there was not one and he went away. He returned, was accepted, and anaesthetised and then was told that he could not be dealt with. He had to be sent home and to return. The lack of co-ordination that allows priority care cases to be accepted, but fails to make sure that when people need to be admitted they are, and the then failure to co-ordinate with the social services so that when people are discharged they are discharged into a community that can care for them seems to be the greatest gap.
I hope that a real effort will be made to co-ordinate social service provision and Health Service provision through joint consultative committees and the like, so that there can be a strong combined effort that does not allow many old people to fall through the gap of our national welfare care. Old people often do not shout the loudest. The test of a caring welfare state is that we heed and serve most those who are the most vulnerable.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. This is a very short debate, and many hon. Members wish to speak. I appeal for short speeches.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: I was interested in many of the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I congratulate him on making them in such a reasonable way. I am sure that many of us would agree with what he said. It seemed that he was saying that the Government were moving in the right direction but should try harder and do better. Many of us feel that that is the way in which we have to approach the matter. Demographic changes have brought about a growing problem. We have coped to some extent with the recent changes, but we shall have to continue further along the path, in view of the large number of elderly people and the problems that will be created, particularly at the turn of the century.
My hon. Friend the Minister quoted an important figure which shows how much the Government have paid attention to the National Health Service. The NHS's share of gross national product has risen from 4·8 per cent. to 5·5 per cent. That is a 12 per cent. increase in NHS provision.

Dr. Marek: Has that got anything to do with gross domestic product being a lot smaller than it need be because of the Government's economic policies?

Mr. Stevens: There is a net growth in the economy and a growing share is going to the NHS.
With the new buildings in the Health Service and a change in facilities, there has been a definite improvement. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was so emotive, talking about what people have a right to expect and what the elderly have done for the country. We accept what they have done, but many of the elderly would also accept that the developments in the Health Service, not just through Government but through discoveries, are a considerable improvement on what they might have expected 30 years ago.
I am extremely surprised that the Opposition should dismiss, as they so often do, the need for efficiency improvements. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey rightly said that there is scope for such improvements. In an organisation with as many as 800,000 employees, and with £20 billion expenditure, efficiency must be an important factor. That leads not to the detriment of service, but to a great improvement. The West Midlands regional health authority has made cost improvements. The three main areas of the four into which it intends to put those savings are care for the mentally ill, for the mentally handicapped and for the elderly.
The problems of the elderly do not all occur in hospitals. They are not all ill or in difficulties. In the private and the public sectors, there is a wide range of residential accommodation, ranging from that with virtually no medical attention to that with much medical attention. While I do not doubt that some establishments are of a low standard, I am sure that there are many, some of them newly opened, of a high standard.
In my constituency, a nursing home has been set up to care mainly for the elderly but also for others with medical problems. I am proud to see its standard, the care and attention that it gives, and the availability of medical attention 24 hours a day, with a qualified nurse on duty and easy access to doctors. However, other nursing homes and homes for the elderly start off merely with better accommodation such as sheltered accommodation. All of this is helping elderly people into more acceptable and usable establishments and homes in which they can enjoy the company of others. We shall see more of these developments. We should be encouraging them rather than condemning them, as Opposition Members do. They can make an important contribution to the welfare of the elderly.
The hospital building programme has led to the removal of many old hospitals and old facilities which were never a joy for old people to go into, irrespective of whether they had permanent bad health or were ill for a short time. Some old hospitals were not of the sort in which we would want to see our elderly relatives.
Now, new hospitals are being built and old hospitals are being extended or rebuilt, as in my area with the George Eliot hospital. That improvement was long overdue, but it is at last happening, and we are seeing the benefit. While there are not the number of beds for geriatrics and the mentally infirm that we would like, there is accommodation of a better standard. They are getting better attention. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the

number of operations that relate to elderly people, such as cataracts and replacement hips, is being extended considerably. That is important for not only the physical well-being but the mental outlook of old people. They can expect these operations and improvements in a more reasonable time, which is extremely encouraging.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey spoke about community care for people coming out of mental institutions. A great deal of attention must be paid to training and co-ordination. Without that, we shall not get benefits for the people involved. Co-ordination is a vital factor, and within the NHS one of the major reasons for new management thinking was to get this right. Coordination is still the problem within some parts of our Health Service, and if general managers have any part to play, it is better co-ordination.
We have not had community care for long. We have had district nurses and other services coming in, but there has not been a co-ordinated effort, on a professional basis, with many different parts of the medical and social services professions. I hope that that will prove a major part of our development. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the Government have provided extensions in both district nurse and special nurse care for geriatrics and in many other sectors. The Department has been going along gently, perhaps not fast enough, but it is going in the right direction and facilities and resources are being provided.
The Government's record stands comparison with any predictions that might have been made a few years ago that such things could not happen. We are taking steps to make sure that resources are provided to help the elderly. How fast is that being done? People always ask for it to be done faster, and it would be amazing if the Opposition did not say that it should be done twice as fast. Had they been in government, I doubt whether they would have been prepared to advance the Health Service as fast and as effectively as this Government have done.

Mrs. Renee Short: There is a rather poor showing of hon. Members in the House. I should have thought that many elderly hon. Members would have been happy to be here to get a few tips. However, they are absent and the youthful hon. Members are here.
After the Green Paper was published the Select Committee on Social Services looked at primary care. Its report dealt with many of the problems relevant to the care of the elderly. In our report we drew attention to the greater use of primary care by the increasing numbers of elderly people in the community and to the growth in private residential homes financed virtually from the social security budget.
The health needs of the elderly are clearly linked to the social services—for example, to housing, social security, home helps and community nursing. All these things are important, and we put more and more burdens on community care not only by changes in population and the fact that people are living longer, but by reducing hospital care. People are moved out of hospital more quickly and look to the social services to help them at home. That inevitably means that we need more general practitioners and a significant sharing of care by nurses and others and much more education about prevention and about self-care by patients.
Health education is crucial for the whole population but especially for older people, and perhaps the Minister will tell us what is going on at present in the Health Education Council which seems to be lying dormant because of all sorts of problems, The consultation paper contains proposals for making more suitable premises available in inner cities, for new financial initiatives to encourage doctors and nurses and perhaps some salaried general practitioners to work in inner cities, and perhaps different rates of pay to encourage other health workers to work in inner cities. All those ideas which were endorsed by the Select Committee were put forward five years ago in 1981 in the Acheson report. I wonder why Ministers are not giving a clear reply now and undertaking to take steps to improve the availability and quality of health care generally and in inner cities.
We need many more properly trained nurses and nurse practitioners working with general practitioners to improve the service for elderly patients, especially the housebound elderly. There is movement in the right direction. I recommend the Minister to study our report about the Birchfield medical centre in Birmingham. It offers comprehensive health screening to elderly patients registered with the practice, runs a patient liaison group which is good for getting patients together in the practice to discuss common health problems, and produces first rate leaflets on patient care for patients to collect when they go to the surgery.
Some hon. Members have spoken about the Government's policy on discharging patients from mental hospitals. Many of those patients are very elderly and many have spent the major part of their lives in an institution. if the Government policy is to work, many more professional workers, including social workers, will be needed to work in the community. Local authorities are being asked to do very much more about providing housing for patients who are discharged, providing community centres and workshops and providing all the other things which the Select Committee said in its report on community care for the mentally ill and handicapped we could not do on the cheap. We need the resources and the will to do those things and money has to be provided to help those who want to do them. Money must be found if that policy is to succeed, and there is great anxiety throughout Britain that the Government are not providing adequate resources to carry out their policy.
At every conference that I address, especially conferences on this crucial matter, I am told of great concern especially about long-stay patients. I hope that the Minister will respond to that. The problems faced by elderly people are important to them and to their families. I hope that the Minister will tell us exactly which of the proposals in the Government's Green Paper and the recommendations made on them by the Select Committee will be provided with the resources to enable them to be carried out. I hope we will be told that the Department has the will to do those things.

Mr. David Evennett: In my constituency, as in the whole of Britain, there is an increasing number of elderly folk. Over the last few years I have been privileged to meet a great number of pensioners in my constituency. I have met them in their homes, in local authority homes and in hospitals. I have talked at great length with them, listened to their

comments and wishes, heard their concerns and listened with interest to their expressions of gratitude for the many facilities provided today which were not provided in the past, especially the increasing provision of facilities.
It must not be forgotten—and I am sure that the Minister has not forgotten—that we are providing many more facilities than ever before for the elderly and that they are grateful. As president of the League of Friends of Homeleigh, an old people's home in Erith in my constituency to which I am a regular visitor, I am extremely impressed by the facilities provided by Bexley local authority and by the quality of the care provided. Too often in this House and outside we criticise and too rarely do we praise, yet the increased provision at that home and at others, like Meyer house and Wolsey house, which are also in my constituency, is a matter for congratulation. The local social services staff are to be complimented for the excellent job that they do in a changing world.
The care of the elderly concerns us all, and, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, it is a challenge for the nation and a challenge for tomorrow. I am always disappointed to hear the Opposition voice criticisms and display manufactured hysteria about the facilities for the elderly. I would rather discuss this matter in a constructive way and try to go forward rather than make party political points. I was impressed by the constructive speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) who spoke about south London, which I know very well.
As the years pass and medical science advances, this problem grows. Many hon. Members have spoken about that. Many pensioners in my constituency are fed up with being lectured or talked down to by politicians. That is because they value their independence, but, like other people, they are also realistic and appreciate the economic situation. They want to advance the services provided by the Health Service and local social services. We do them no credit or justice if we do not accept that they appreciate those things and realise that there are financial constraints. Within those constraints they want an efficient service. The Government have shown that they are determined not only to increase resources, but to increase efficiency in the provision of services. That is vital.
Pensioners are grateful to the Government for controlling inflation not only because of their own fixed income—as we heard in the previous debate, they are the section of the community that will be hardest hit by inflation—but because with. inflation they see the destruction of services. They saw that in the 1970s, as a result of inflation and economic mismanagement. Therefore, they are well aware of how important it is to maintain low inflation and get real value for money in the services provided.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) that when one looks at the record, we could always do better. We would like to see more money provided. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned community care provision. We would all like to see more community care provision. However, we are aware of the increases that have taken place under this Government. The total Health Service budget increased from £7·75 billion in 1978–79 to £18·9 billion in 1986–87. That is a real achievement. When one


realises that over 40 per cent. of that is spent on caring for the elderly, it shows the Government's concern to ensure that the elderly are well provided for in the Health Service.
With a progressively aging population there is inevitably an increasing demand for services. There are 1 million more pensioners today than in 1978, so we face a daunting task. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Minister when he mentioned the percentage increase in Health Service personnel dealing with elderly people. He mentioned district nurses. There has been a 34 per cent. increase in consultant geriatricians since 1979. That is a real achievement and one of which we can be proud. Of course, it is not enough. We need more, and hopefully we shall see more.
The other issue regularly raised with me in my surgery and in my meetings with pensioners is the waiting list problem for particular operations. We all know that the length of waiting lists in the Health Service was not good in the past, but we have seen a considerable break-through in reducing the length of waiting lists. In the south-east region, in which my constituency is situated, the waiting lists have not been reduced enough. I look forward to the visit of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to my constituency and to Bexley health authority next month when we will put our case to him for increasing resources for our area to reduce waiting lists. However, the number of operations taking place, especially for elderly people who are often in considerable discomfort and need hip replacements and so on, has been increasing. The number of hip replacement operations increased from 28,000 in 1978 to 38,000 in 1984, and the target we are projecting is 48,000 in 1990. Those are real achievements and we should be grateful. However, that is not enough. Of course, we would like more, and I am sure that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replies she will take note of the points that have been made and will seek to improve the situation further.
Although we would like to see more money spent, Conservative Members must say to Ministers that it must be spent efficiently and effectively and it must be spread fairly across the country. We have had many debates in the House on funding for the Health Service in the south-east region and the London region because we often feel that London has been somewhat neglected under the RAWP reallocation. However, we were grateful for the Secretary of State's comments last week on additional funding for the Thames region. We must year in mind that in some areas of the country the number of elderly is increasing more rapidly than in others. I hope that the increasing number of elderly in certain regions will be taken into account when the allocation of resources is determined.
The Government's record is creditable to date and we are grateful for the advances that have been made in provisions for the elderly. However, there is much more to do, and all we can say is, "Keep going, but perhaps a little faster."

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I should declare an interest at the outset because I am an old-age pensioner and, therefore, one could say that is an example of enlightened self-interest. I am pleased to say that I am enjoying good health.
I would like to strike an optimistic note. I would like the Minister to answer the three issues I am going to raise. I want to talk about a continuing interest I have had over 20 years in the House—the whole concept of rehabilitation for disabled and elderly people. I want to spend time on the problem of incontinence because of the size of that problem and a couple of minutes on the possible treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
I am trying to keep as up to date as I can and I want to refer to the report of the Royal College of Physicians which it published in July 1986 entitled "Physical Disability in 1986 and Beyond". In many ways it summarised my feelings within that area. Frequently elderly or disabled people suffer despondency and despair because they feel they cannot cope with life. My own feeling is that the proper and wise application of rehabilitation techniques to those people can give them the independence that they so worthily need. That can be provided at a relatively low cost.
The three issues that I want to discuss today are related to my philosophy with regard to health care: that if it is technically possible—I say this over and over again—economically sound and morally right, it ought to be implemented. I suggest that in areas where it is possible to establish sound concepts of rehabilitation, it would be a worthwhile economic procedure for the Government to follow.
The Minister is an old friend of mine and he knows that I have ridden that hobby horse for a long time. I plead with him to apply greater resources to rehabilitation in general terms and specifically to the care of the frail elderly. At the end of the day, the experience we possess in rehabilitation medicine is such that we can provide a much better quality of life to our elderly folk. It means collaboration between physiotherapists, geriatric consultants, nursing staff trained in that area and a whole range of paramedical professions. They can provide a quality of life which we at one time thought had gone from certain people. I must pay tribute to the good work being done within my own constituency at Ladywell hospital and the Hope hospital. The Minister will realise that I shall come back to that subject on a personal basis at a later stage.
I shall now deal with a subject that is almost taboo in the House—the question of bowels and bladders. Some people seem to assume that human beings go around at certain times without bowels and bladders. However, we should get it quite clear: there are 2·5 million people in Britain who suffer from incontinence. Those are figures not from my imagination, but figures that the Minister gave me recently. What is worrying is the fact that we accept incontinence as a way of life. The Under-Secretary of State who will be replying to the debate knows full well that it is the female of the species who accepts incontinence without taking action about it. That is very sad. The assumption is that one has had a couple of kids and all one needs to do is to pad up because there is nothing one can do about it. That is the most tragic misunderstanding that takes place in medicine. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to look carefully at expanding the uro-dynamic clinics for the incontinent, because I have had some startling information from the Minister. According to our national records, for the 200 health districts in Great Britain and Northern Ireland there are only 134 nurses with responsibility for and interest in incontinence. Therefore, not all districts are covered. There are only two in


Scotland, both of whom are based in Edinburgh, and in Northern Ireland there are no facilities for this sort of advice.
First, there should be an assessment of the needs of a patient suffering from incontinence. Often that leads to dramatic improvements. We should not write people off as being incontinent for the rest of their life. I have personal knowledge of the work done in the Maelor hospital, Wrexham. Incontinence can be reversed medically and surgically, and we should say that loud and clear to prevent the 2·5 million people and their families from having to suffer the indignity of this complaint.
If incontinence cannot he cured by medical or surgical means, the problem can often be managed successfully by exercise. That can overcome what is known as stress incontinence. I am trying to take an optimistic approach to this issue. We tend to start at the end by saying, "Oh, it's pads." Pads should be the last in a long line of careful analysis. Again, the Minister will find that this does not involve great cost. Indeed, bed occupancy would decrease if the symptom were treated properly.
Following the substantial number of parliamentary questions that I asked on this subject, I received a letter from a nurse in Blackpool who looks after incontinent people. Throughout the country we would like to have walk-in incontinent clinics so that men or women can walk in, state their problems with this often taboo subject, and have them analysed and assessed there and then. In that way their suffering can be discontinued. The nurse's letter reads:
The incontinent client is, in many ways, a social outcast; alone in their suffering and one who incurs much needless expense. I feel it is time the problem was considered at Government level so that guidelines may be given to professionals and carers in the promotion of continence … It can be prevented, it is often curable and it can be managed.
The work done by the Disabled Living Foundation is remarkable, and I pay tribute to the fact that the Department supports it. However, I am worried that faecal impaction is often treated by somebody who is untrained. Despite the optimistic reply I received from the Minister, I have reason to believe that it is treated more frequently by untrained people than the Department is aware of. This is an extremely sensitive issue. All too often people, particularly elderly people, are put into a psychiatric ward because of the misunderstanding and confusion that the condition creates in their mind. People like Dorothy Mandelstam, who works at DLF, would state that there was evidence of that.
I shall end shortly because other hon. Members wish to speak. I should like to refer to a matter which I must approach delicately— Alzheimer's disease, or senile dementia. All too often people assume that it is incurable and nothing further can be clone. Nobody ever wants to raise false hopes, and the Minister knows full well that I tend to receive information from all sorts of sources because all sorts of people trust me. This subject is particularly difficult to advance on the Floor of the House because it is not yet generally accepted that the condition can be contained.
Will the Minister look carefully at the experimental work being done with success on tetrahydroaminoacridine substances which help in this disease? Sometimes middle-aged but most frequently older people suffer from this dreadful disease. Some 500,000 people are involved, and their carers and families also suffer. I do not wish to raise

false hopes, but in reply I hope that the Minister will say that she will look carefully at the work being done in this area by Nottingham and the Guy's Maudsley unit.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: As the youngest hon. Member taking part in the debate, I am particularly pleased to follow one of the best experts on the disabled and the elderly, the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). I know that he has championed many causes and I have learnt something just listening to him.
I wish to talk about two important matters: residential care for the elderly, and a local problem in a hospital in Leicester. However, I must begin by congratulating the Government on the additional £25 million to help cut hospital waiting lists and by thanking the Minister for the £2³4 million given to Trent. That will help the elderly and reduce some of the long waiting lists, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) alluded.
The Daily Telegraph, not The Sun, of Wednesday 18 February reported rather frighteningly that a Labour Government would axe help for the old in nursing homes. I appreciate that there is anxiety about the way in which some of these homes are run, but it is particularly important to allow our elderly to have the best possible facilities first at home and then, when it is too much of a strain for the rest of the family or for carers to look after them, in a residential care home or registered nursing home where they can be given independence and respect.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) spoke about a numbers game and said that the number of registered nursing homes was reducing. I shall prove that their number has increased. On 31 December 1984 there were 1,491 registered homes. In 1983, there were 1,316. Obviously there has been quite an increase.
I have a lot of respect for residential care homes. The majority of the people who run them do an excellent job. But in 1984 there were 4,090 residential care homes with 55,168 residents; in 1985 there were 5,200 homes with 69,000 residents; and in 1986 there were 6,303 homes with 80,000 residents—a tremendous increase. Much of that increase is to be welcomed because obviously not all elderly people can be cared for in their own homes and many have to turn to residential care.
I should like the fees for residential care homes to be better controlled. My hon. Friend the Minister is aware of my feelings on this matter. Those people who are unable to cope on their own must either be looked after in a local authority home or the local authority sponsors them in private or voluntary homes. It appears that the Labour party plans to take away the finance for that. Labour Members must appreciate that there are many hard-up elderly people, although not a huge number, who need the best possible care. Homes are available for them and, whether they are local authority homes or private or voluntary homes, Labour Members must ensure that those facilities are allowed to continue.

Dr. Marek: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruinvels: I would rather not give way because time is short.
The availability of generous supplementary benefit board and lodging rates has ensured that many people who otherwise might not have been able to take advantage of


private sector care can use those facilities. That system should continue. We must consider the wide choice of private residential care homes and the type of care available. I should like each residential care home to publish its charges, the number of staff on duty and whether staff are totally professional in the sense that they are fully qualified. There should never be a residential care home that is not registered. Some such homes are not registered at the moment because they have fewer than four beds. I believe that residential care homes with just one bed should register. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that important point further.
Public money is offered to these homes and the Government are especially careful to target it in the right way to ensure that it is spent on the best, most suitable form of care for the people who need it. A working party, comprising Government officials and local authorities, is examining ways of using these funds rationally.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that the elderly were living longer, and that is true. Obviously it is good news. It must be because of the atmosphere, their determination to survive and the general way of life. About 50 per cent. of the care needs of the elderly are catered for by the private sector at about 50 per cent. of the cost incurred by the public sector. That means that about 35 per cent. of people in private care pay their own way, although they have contributed to the state system throughout their working lives. Residential care homes offer a homely care facility and are nothing like the Victorian and Edwardian institutions at the turn of the century.
A confederation has been set up to represent the interests of the large number of privately owned registered residential homes. It is self-monitoring the bad residential homes. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras talked about a number of them being bad, but I do not agree. There are a few bad apples—obviously we must weed them out—but the rest have done extremely well. I should like minimum standards to be guaranteed in every residential care home. The Registered Homes Act 1984 must ensure that that happens. Facilities and services must be provided— for example, lifts, fire exits, proper directions and proper food, which in some homes has not been up to reasonable nutritional standards.
The regulations lay down the bed square footage which should be provided and standards are always being updated. The Registered Homes Act 1984 has given district health authorities the right to inspect premises regularly. The Registered Nursing Home Association is fearful because residential homes are inspected "at all times". Inspections should be encouraged, provided that they are carried out reasonably. Some people have alluded to raids on residential nursing homes. According to my information, that does not happen. We must give residents the best possible care and ensure that facilities are the same in all residential nursing homes.
Staff, including ancillary staff, must be adequtely, professionally and technically trained. There must be adequate arrangements for the patient in the home so that he or she receives proper medical and dental services as and when required.
Minimum and maximum charges must be considered. Obviously, charges must be realistic in view of the services offered. Many residential care proprietors give far better

care than some of the relations of the elderly could. It is a sad fact of life that, in certain cases, love and care is given by a residential care home because it is too difficult to look after the elderly person at home. My hon. Friend the Minister of State announced new limits on the charges and the gross costs and the minimum standards. That announcement was welcome.
In the long term, we must obviously provide more suitably qualified staff in homes. There must be proper night staff and we must consider the precautions for fire risk. That is an area of difficulty as the elderly need to get out of residential homes fast. Certainly the requirements in regulation 10 give due regard to those obligations. We must ensure that homes are properly registered and check on them when they take residents in for residential care, and the residents should have a say in the way in which the home is run. It is especially important that there are proper and adequate facilities at all times. None of my constituents should be charged £16,000 for a room with just a bed, as one of my constituents is being charged outside Leicestershire.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred to the elderly and the tremendous service that they have done for their country. All hon. Members will agree with that. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is not in the Chamber at the moment, but it is important to put on record the fact that when there are war memorial services in Leicester the entire Conservative group attends. However, at the last service only three Labour councillors out of 39 went to the service. I do not need any lectures on how the elderly are to be supported and honoured at war memorial services.
Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security pay an official visit to Leicester Royal infirmary? I know that my hon. Friend has visited the infirmary in the past, but one part of the hospital is in a decrepit and Victorian state, especially around the entrance to the hospital. As my hon. Friend knows, the Leicester Royal infirmary is a renowned teaching hospital and the university relies on it as a training hospital. However, some old Victorian wards are in a decrepit state and the elderly are being treated long term in those wards. When I visited the Leicester Royal infirmary two Fridays ago, I was appalled at the poor state of repair of that facility area for the elderly. It is unusual for me to call for additional funds, but I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security to supply additional funds to that hospital.

Mrs. Currie: For the sake of balance, does my hon. Friend recognise that a substantial sum of money was spent in Leicester not very long ago? Off the top of my head, I believe that that was about £25 million. It provided a brand new hospital just up the road.

Mr. Bruinvels: I acknowledge that additional funds have been given. The problem is that we have almost too many hospitals in Leicester—almost, not definitely.
The Leicester Royal infirmary is not in my constituency and the funds have gone to the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). However, one part of the Leicester Royal infirmary is very drab indeed. It has no private facilities and the morale of the staff is not at its best. When I paid my semi-official visit to the hospital and spoke to the staff, it was clear that more


funds were needed. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to treat that as a matter of urgency as many of my constituents attend that hospital.
The closing of the Fielding Johnson hospital and the Roundhill maternity hospital will provide additional funds which, I hope, can be channelled to the Leicester Royal infirmary. However, obviously I do not want my hon. Friend to forget the Towers hospital and the Leicester General hospital in my constituency which are well looked after, and 1 thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that.
The elderly are living longer in Leicestershire and they need the best facilities that are available. Provided that those facilities are properly channelled and correct decisions are taken by the Trent regional health authority and the Leicestershire area health authority, and the RAWP requirement is sufficient— my hon. Friend knows that we receive 96 per cent. at present, but we would like a little more—I believe that the elderly will continue to be well cared for.
I pay tribute to both Ministers for what they have done to help those who are desperately in need in the city of Leicester and in the county. The health provision is second to none. The finances put into Leicestershire are pretty good, but a little extra would be welcome. The future is rosy for the elderly people there, provided that we can reduce the waiting lists, and the additional funds that my hon. Friend announced earlier this month will ensure that the elderly in Leicestershire receive the best possible care.
The Government amendment is by far the most realistic proposition. It acknowledges the work that has been done, the dedication of the staff and the certainty that the elderly will have more chance of getting better more quickly in the best-provided hospitals in the county of Leicestershire.

Mr. Tom Pendry: As the motion refers not only to the Health Service but to local councils and services, I am puzzled that we have two Health Ministers and two Opposition health spokesmen in this debate. I wish to discuss not Health Service provision, but some of the other services that are essential for the elderly.
It is right that the House has turned its attention this week to the problems of the elderly, through the two debates initiated by the official Opposition today and the debate initiated by the Government yesterday. I suppose that the latter was intended to be an occasion of self-congratulation about the EEC food surpluses, but it turned out to be yet another self-inflicted wound. It was right for my colleagues to point out yesterday that charities such as Age Concern, Help the Aged, the Salvation Army and the Women's Royal Voluntary Service are toiling to get those food surpluses to the needy, but, through no fault of theirs, to little effect. Indeed, the scheme is costing those charities a good deal of their precious money. Age Concern in my constituency received its first consignment of butter yesterday, and it has spent £700 through telephone costs organising meetings, issuing literature, and so on. It wanted to spend that precious money on 10 high-backed chairs for its new day centre. I hope that the House will press the EEC to ensure that that money is repaid to the charities which are trying to distribute food to the elderly.
The branch of Age Concern in my constituency, like most branches in other constituencies, does valuable work, but its work in Tameside will be restricted because the

Government plan to lop off Tameside council from their urban aid programme. The Manpower Services Commission's programme is also severely restricting Age Concern, the welfare rights charities, Help the Aged and other organisations in my constituency. The MSC is being asked to give more of its thin cake to the inner cities. I do not decry the problems of the inner cities, but in some pockets of my constituency, and in many other constituencies in the north-west, there is similar deprivation and there are similar problems for the elderly. We should be talking not about slicing this thin cake, but expanding the cake to meet our ever-increasing problems, especially those which affect the elderly. No Government who allow organisations such as Age Concern to run down to their present level can be called a caring Government.
In my constituency, Age Concern is sponsored by the MSC. It does many of the jobs that have already been outlined, including the jobs that the elderly cannot do for themselves, such as repairing flexes, painting their homes, and so on. Unfortunately, they will be under threat if the Government's current policies are pursued. Those services will be run down by the Government if the urban aid programme is not restored to many local authorities like mine, and if the Manpower Services Commission programmes are cut.
The Government pay a great deal of lip service to caring about the elderly. During the winter months we heard about their aims, but they gave only empty promises to the elderly. Some 2,000 old people died from hypothermia or cold-related illnesses during the week following the recent cold spell. However, .the Government have steadfastly refused to tell us with what, if anything, they intend to replace the single payment allowance that has been invaluable in helping old people to insulate and draught-proof their homes. We want to know from the Minister tonight what will happen after April, because many people throughout the country want to know what will happen then.
I want the Minister to address herself to the drastic cuts that have been planned by the MSC. I know that that is not the responsibility of her Department, but the MSC is directly responsible for many energy-saving schemes that are currently being held up. In her capacity as a "caring"—if I may put it this way—Health Minister, she should be knocking at the doors of the Department of Energy and of the MSC and finding out exactly what is being done to ensure that those energy-saving priority projects—or so we are told—are realised and come on stream for those elderly people.
Two such schemes have been held up in my constituency. One is called "Keep Hattersley Warm"—nothing to do with the deputy leader of the Opposition, but with a Manchester overspill estate. According to an independent survey, 90 per cent. of those interviewed said that their homes were hard to heat, 88 per cent. had draught problems, 85 per cent. had difficulty paying their heating bills and 34 per cent. of the total number were pensioners. It is a cold and bleak estate in winter, as hon. Members who have visited it will know.
The second scheme is called "Keep Tameside Warm". That is another estate in my constituency with a high proportion of pensioners. They are waiting for a scheme that has been approved by the MSC but held back because it has cut 10,000 of 255,000 places that it promised for next year. That means that in my constituency there will be a great deal of resentment because expectations are already


high in those estates. However, the residents will not benefit from the schemes because the community programmes are designed to try to meet the needs of all those people currently on the schemes. The MSC does not wish—I do not blame it—to lop off any of the schemes currently in place and working.
It is the new schemes that are being held up. The MSC should tune its criteria more finely and consider energy-saving projects, as distinct from other projects within its scope. It is disgraceful that the schemes, which are designed to save energy and lives, are not considered separately from other environmental schemes.
Time is short and other hon. Members wish to speak, so I have already shed most of my speech. I see my Whip nodding. The Government should look more closely at some of the other areas that are so desperately important to the pensioners of this country.
We should ensure that the Manpower Services Commission, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health and Social Security work more closely together to ensure that elderly people have a much better deal than they presently have, especially in areas in which the elderly need to keep warm during our cold winters. If the Government wish to be caring in future—we all know that that is a false claim—they should address this matter in a much more positive way.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I hope that the House will bear with me as I relate a recent personal experience that I believe will provide an insight. I have had a crash course on dying. For three months, I experienced the way in which one nurses a dying person and the trauma, stress and strain that is involved. My elderly sister with terminal cancer came out of hospital three months ago. Because she lived alone, she had to be nursed by my wife and another sister until her death four weeks ago. That experience gave me an entirely new perspective on the matter of care at the end of one's life. Previously, the debate was dominated by two poles—on one hand, a geratric hospital ward and, on the other hand, community care. But the Cinderella is the care, compassion and medical help that one needs in the process of dying.
A recent new dimension that has caught a certain amount of public attention is the hospice movement. There is an inadequate number of hospices and inadequate support for them, yet they are perhaps one of the most civilised developments in the care of the elderly that have taken place in this decade.
What is being done about the domiciliary care of the dying that is provided by two excellent services? I defer to no one in my appreciation of district nurses, but two special organisations, the Marie Curie nurses and the MacMillan nurses, provide terminal care with special experience and expertise. I have experienced the trauma of what can happen when necessary home support is not available. What support are the Government prepared to give those excellent organisations that provide a service that nobody else provides so effectively? A district nurse is competent over the whole area of care, but her time is limited, especially as there is a shortage of district nurses. Therefore, those who suffer the constant day-to-day pressures at the time of a person's death need far more

support than we, either governmentally or locally, are giving. I ask the Minister to rethink his strategy on geriatric wards and hospices.
I object to the fact that in my constituency two hospitals with 180 geriatric beds have been closed over the past four years. I want the Minister to think more clearly about institutional and community care. At the moment the matter is too rough and ready. I pay tribute to the primary care consultations that are going on and to some of the excellent ideas that are being shared between those who need to care.
Although we think in terms of illness and the elderly, as has been said, to be old is not a problem, but it can create and have problems within it. There are four main areas of concern for the person who does not need hospitalisation or even community physicians. They are, first, hearing disabilities; secondly, dental problems; thirdly, eye problems; and, fourthly, foot problems.
I recently had the privilege of having an article published in a magazine called "Saga", which goes to a few million elderly people. As a consequence, I am getting letters from all over the country. I am surprised when I continue to get the kind of letter that I received from an elderly lady of 85, who was conned out of—650 for two hearing aids by a door-to-door salesman, because she filled in a coupon. The NHS hearing aid service is as good as one could expect, and 1·5 billion hearing aids have already been issued, free of charge. Batteries are also free. Will the Minister provide the maximum amount of publicity to inform elderly people that they do not need to pay hundreds of pounds for hearing aids, because the NHS hearing aid is just as good? I am wearing two NHS hearing aids—the BE52s. By buying in bulk, the Government, according to a recent answer from the Minister, is paying £21 for each of these aids. The same aids are being sold for £300 each in the private sector. I know the makers. The elderly are being conned, and they need to be protected.
Will the Minister refer to the statement of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), when he was the Opposition spokesman on health, who agreed that my Bill, to amend my own Hearing Aid Council Act 1968 to plug this doorstep loophole, would be accepted by the Tory Opposition? I have introduced that Bill for 10 years, with the support of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the British Association for the Hard of Hearing and of all other hearing impaired people. Each time the Government Whips have blocked the Bill. I have been to see the present Minister and pleaded that something should be done about it. Therefore, I ask the Minister to take steps to lift the ban so that, when it comes up for Second Reading in May, I shall be given a clear run.
Increased dental charges now mean that an elderly person has to pay £47 for dentures. I hope to goodness that the charge will not be increased again on 1 April. The House knows that as people grow old there is gum and ridge shrinkage. Consequently, new dentures are needed. Elderly people, who have much dignity, do not like to ask for charity, so most old people make do with what they have already got. Therefore, the Government should take action and listen to the pleas of the British Dental Association.
The only people who now have any help with glasses are those on supplementary benefit. At one time, all old people had that privilege. Testing remains obligatory, but I wish that the Government would make it mandatory that opticians should go further than just testing visual acuity.
One can obtain from an optician an early diagnosis of glaucoma, cataracts, hypertension and diabetes long before anybody, but in particular the elderly, goes to see the general practitioner. Surely it was Scrooge at his worst to take from old people the right to free spectacles that they had enjoyed for so long.
I refer the Minister to her report "More Trouble with Feet." That survey was conducted by Dr. Ann Cartwright. Old people need to be mobile so that they are not lonely. They need to be able to get about. However, despite the increase in provision that the Government boast about, there is a drastic shortage of chiropodists and also of training for chiropodists in the year ahead. Dr. Cartwright says:
Fifty pre cent. more chiropodists are needed immediately.
The elderly should be able to live in a civilised fashion in the community. Therefore, these four areas of concern that I have outlined should be acted upon by the Government.
Local social services, health services and the voluntary bodies co-operate in providing help for the elderly. For example, my much maligned Brent council has provided 2,699 telephones for elderly people who are living alone—and the telephone provides a lifeline, especially for those who live in high-rise blocks of flats.
The combined operation of joint planning and joint funding is now an antiquated system of co-ordination between the local social services and district health authorities. I appeal for an early revision of the system. When will we ever learn? The care of the elderly is indivisible. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, we can never repay this generation for what they have done for us and for generations to follow.

Mr. Den Dover: I wish to refer to two aspects of health care, one in the community and one involving mental illness. We have not heard enough about the district nursing service. Over the last decade or so people have been spending shorter periods in hospital and the burden of service has been put on the community. People have to be dealt with by the community nursing service for longer in preparation for hospital treatment. When patients come out after shorter hospital stays an ever-increasing burden is placed on the district nursing service. Are the Government giving enough emphasis to the needs of staffing in the community?
It is all very well saying that in our large inner cities the population is reducing and that we do not need spending on major hospitals. That is right. But it is in those very inner cities and large centres of population that there is an ever-increasing number of elderly people. They need more and more care by the district nursing service. Unbearable burdens are being put on that staff. Are the Government allocating enough resources? The district nursing service is always seen as the junior partner in the provision of health services.
How much or how little emphasis has been put by the Government on mental illness, despite policy studies in the early 1970s, when the Conservative party was in opposition, aimed at improving mental illness services? We have enormous estates. We should try to get the elderly and mentally infirm back into their families if possible. We

should redevelop the major estates and release funds for more health care services in hospitals and in the community.
The private sector has a part to play. Surely we need not leave it to the public sector solely to deal with menial illness. There is no reason why there should not be privately financed treatment of the mentally ill and infirm. I should like to see that because there is an enormous untapped resource which could be used to improve the Health Service throughout the nation.

Dr. John Marek: This debate has been characterised by Conservative Members saying that everything within the National Health Service is good and that the Government have done everything that needs to be done, yet at the same time in their own constituencies there is something which is not quite right. We have had the unedifying spectacle of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) making special pleas to the Government for more funding because of the number of old people in his constituency We have had the spectacle of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), who said that he rarely votes for spending more money, telling us about going round Leicester Royal infirmary. He said that some old wards are in a decrepit state. He went further; he said that he was appalled at the state of those wards and he wanted extra spending.
So we could go on. I am sure that, if asked, any Conservative Member could find something in the National Health Service that is not quite right. Of course, the public know very well that wards are being closed every day, that there are five-day wards and that there is a continual search for beds simply because the authorities have to consider performance indicators. The accountant rules, and what the accountant wants he has to get.
My hon. Friends the Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), for Brent, South (Mr. Pavia), for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) have put the argument for more and better care of the elderly very well. I agree with those arguments. Eventually, I hope that those arguments will convince the Government— they will certainly convince the next Labour Government—that more should be done for the elderly.
I wish to repeat the figures for old-age pensions given by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West ( Mr. Meacher) in the last debate. They are also valid for this debate. Money is important because that gives the elderly the ability to look after themselves, to provide heat in winter, to feed themselves and to pursue an active life to the end of their days. My hon. Friend said that old-age pensions had increased by 20 per cent. over and above prices during the period of office of the previous Labour Government, but that they had increased by only 4·5 per cent. over and above prices under the present Tory Administration. The Minister for Social Security sought to say that those figures were not as accurate as they should be, but he did not give us the accurate figures. The figures mentioned by my hon. Friend were in the research note that was published on 18 November and had been placed in the Library. Therefore, the Minister, had he wished, had plenty of time in which to find the accurate figures. Suffice to say that, if the figures given by my hon. Friend are inaccurate, they are not very inaccurate.
The Minister was rattled and produced his figures and added in all sorts of allowances concerning poverty or disability. The figures that the Minister produced were misleading because one figure suggested that the disposable income of pensioners had increased faster than the disposable income of the rest of the population. That might be right, but the Minister did not say that a considerable part of the population is unemployed and has little disposable income. That has been the tenor of the statistics and arguments put forward by the Government Front Bench during the two debates.
The Government have sought to say that the figures produced by the Opposition are inaccurate. I am not saying that those figures are the last thing in accuracy. They may be inaccurate in detail, but they seek to provide an accurate, true reflection of what is happening to our old people.
When the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security replied to the previous debate he put a figure on the disposable income of pensioners and said that it had risen 18 per cent. more than the disposable income of the rest of the population. Such a figure is misleading. The crunch of the argument is that central to pensioners' well-being—after increases in public health services for which Governments of all persuasions have been responsible—is the amount of disposable income that they possess. That income helps the elderly to heat their houses in winter, to feed themselves and to lead active lives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said that old-age pensions are equivalent to 18 per cent. of average earnings in this country. They are equivalent to 50 per cent. of average earnings in West Germany and 60 to 70 per cent. of average earnings in France. They are shocking figures and I make no apology for repeating them. I cannot see how any Government can try to get out of accepting those figures. I repeat that the Labour Government, as a start, will increase the single pension by £5 and the married pension by £8.
The Minister for Health pursued the same line in his speech. He said that spending on the National Health Service has increased by about a third in real terms. In the past it has been said that spending has increased by 22 per cent., then 24 per cent. and now the Minister says it has increased by a third in real terms. The Minister did not say that we are getting older as a nation and therefore spending must increase to ensure that the standard of service is maintained. The Minister did not say that the medical price index increases at a higher rate than the retail prices index and that, therefore, we would have to spend more money in real terms to maintain standards.
The Minister did not say that there are now many new operations that were hardly dreamt of 10 years ago, such as hip replacement operations, that are desired by the population, especially the elderly, so that they are assured of an active life in later years. He did not say that presently there is much more unemployment and that the unemployed need the National Health Service more than do the employed. But we know that the Government do not believe that, because the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales says that he does not believe that there is a link between unemployment and ill health. Finally, the Minister did not say that there are new diseases such as AIDS, which demand new expenditure

and need extra expenditure to keep the standard of service the same. The hon. Gentleman simply said that spending on the NHS has gone up by getting on for one third. That is a shallow misrepresentation, for which I do not blame him. Obviously, it is an edict given out by the Prime Minister some years ago, that one uses all the possibilities of misrepresentation and selection of figures to try to convince the people that everything that can he done by the Government is being done.
Of course, people are not fools. They see long waiting lists. They know that they might be refused admission when they go to hospital and that they might have to go again to see whether they can have their non-urgent operation. They see that there are not enough nurses doing nursing duties because there have been cuts in ancillary staff. They will not be fooled by shallow misrepresentations.
Some of the elderly have been moved into community care. There is an unseemly haste by the Government in pressing health authorities to get rid of their elderly patients and put them into the community. It has meant that some patients are becoming hopeless and suicidal, and are also the victims of grasping and uncaring landlords. The NHS and voluntary bodies simply do not have the resources for proper continuing care after patients are discharged into the community. There have been cases where former patients have been put into community care, and have found themselves sharing a room with two or three other former patients, sometimes of the opposite sex. In one documented case, a 60-year-old woman had not eaten for two days, and had gone into a tiny room at the top of a dilapidated staircase, with electricity being supplied illegally through an adaptor connected to a 5p slot meter.
I have a case at present in my constituency where a housing association is seeking to convert a large home so that is is suitable for elderly patients being discharged into the community, but it says that resources are not there for a warden to be provided. It says that it has money to provide only bedsitter accommodation, and that it does not have the finances to provide properly constructed one-bedroom flats. I fear that that pattern is being repeated throughout the country.
Of course, the Government look at community care as a cheap option. I have seen no evidence to the contrary. They look at it as something on which the Treasury can spend less, whereas proper community care would cost as much if not more than insitutionalised hospital care.
I visited the Truro constituency earlier this week. I was told that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), was due to visit it on 16 February. She cancelled her visit. I do not know whether there was any reason why she did that, but the people in the Truro constituency do not know. She did not turn up. Radio Cornwall announced that she was going to look at the hospitals, but when the day arrived, she was not there. She did not go. Was she muzzled? Was she told by her masters and by her mistress that there is something going on in Truro, and it would be better if the hon. Lady was not there?

Mrs. Currie: I would not wish to leave the hon. Gentleman in suspense. I could not attend because I was preparing for the Opposition debate the following day. As


he will recall, I replied to another debate that day. The visit was rearranged for today. I decided that I preferred the hon. Gentleman's company on this occasion.

Dr. Marek: What can I say after that? [Hon. Members: "Be careful."] My hon. Friends warn me to be careful. This is a serious point. I hope that the hon. Lady will go to the Truro constituency because I should like to see whether she can say that there is something that she or her Government can be proud of—she has not been in her job that long, and it would be unfair to blame her for all that the Government have done.
When I went round the local hospital in St. Austell, I was told that many things were wrong in the constituency. There is a long waiting list for hip replacement operations. Eye operations are having to be done in the private hospital next door to Truro. Apparently, a surgeon will do them free so that the waiting list can be cut down. I wonder what the NHS has come to when that happens. The ambulance service is not of the same quality as it used to be.
I have only another two minutes to speak, but I wonder whether the Under-Secretary will mend her ways? In the House of Commons, she said:
Universal screening is neither desirable nor necessary."—[Official Report, 5 February 1986; Vol. 91, c, 372.]
If she said that— [Interruption] I have it here in a copy of Hansard. Does she still believe that it is neither desirable nor necessary or will she now say that it is desirable for all people to have screening, to have regular checks, so that preventive care will mean something to our elderly people?
On a different day the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South said:
We do not believe in equality … There should be a gap between the rich and the poor."—[Official Report, 28 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 1218.]
If she did say that, I do not think that our elderly will derive much hope from the present Government and its policies, certainly not while the hon. Lady is occupying her position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South talked about dentures and hoped that their price would not rise in the next Budget. The hon. Lady is quoted as saying:
charges irritate people and they put some people off, but on the dental side there is no evidence that they put people off."—[Official Report, 25 March 1985; Vol. 76, c. 163.]
The charges do not put the rich off, but those are not the people that my hon. Friend was worrying about. The hon. Lady does not give us much hope, and I do not think that we will get much hope from the present Government. The elderly need more home helps; they need cuts in standing charges for electricity and gas, and preferably abolition of such charges. We need more district nurses; we need more therapists; we need more for the medical service so that we can have frequent check-ups for elderly people, and, above all, we need more disposable income for the elderly so that they can look after themselves. In spite of all the cant that we get from the Government, I do not think that we will get that from them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I listened with interest to the words of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). I do not think that he has much confidence in the Opposition case. He spent most of his speech trying,

with singular lack of success, to reopen issues that were disposed of by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) in the previous debate. As to the question of universal screening, I thought that we dealt with that last week. I do not think that the hon. Member for Wrexham was present on that occasion; perhaps he was in Truro at the time.
We have had an excellent debate, with a number of well-informed speeches. I hope that some hon. Members will not mind if I write to them in detail about the issues that they raised. I agree with one or two of the comments that were made. For example, I agree with the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), who spoke about rehabilitation. What he said about many of the issues that he raised was right. Prevention also is an important matter. The hon. Member talked about incontinence clinics. It may be that we should have well-elderly clinics that encompass a number of such issues. Broadly, I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he asked for on Alzheimer's disease. I hope that he never has need for the services that he called for.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) asked about chiropodists. We have set up additional training schools, and another school is opening this year. He also mentioned hospices. As he probably knows, we had a debate on hospices last week, which was called by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), to whose speech I refer him. We held a joint conference on care of the dying between the DHSS and the National Association of Health Authorities which resulted in a guide for health authorities. A circular setting out DHSS policy on terminal care is coming out at the beginning of next week, which we hope will encompass some of the issues that he raised.
Several hon. Members talked about co-ordination of services for people who are discharged from hospital. Under the Helping the Comrr unity to Care programme we are funding a number of voluntary organisations, including Age Concern and Red Cross, to develop new ways of developing such co-ordination. We will look with interest at the results.
I was a little surprised at the comments that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made on crime. If he is so concerned about crime, we hope that he will persuade his party to back the police in the future. There are a number of other detailed issues, but in view of the time I hope that hon. Members will allow me to write to them about them.
We are all interested in services for the elderly, because we all hope to get there some day—perhaps me more than most, since women are far more likely to do it than men. Currently, there are 3 million people aged between 75 years and 84 years and 750,000 aged over 85 years. There are 3,400 people who are more than 100 years old. A centenarian these days has a life expectancy of two years, and we expect the number of them to increase substantially. No one tonight has paid tribute to medical science, or the improved living conditions and good preventative work that has resulted in this considerable growth in numbers, and we look forward to much of the same.
For many people, old age is not a disaster but, in the terms of "A Handbook For Retirement" recently produced by Age Concern, "The Time of Your Life". Lord Murray said in his introduction:


Retirement should not mean inaction but a period of liberation—a time to do all those things which a full-time job made impossible … Today's retired men and women are generally more youthful, active and healthy than ever before. They are branching out in new skills and interests … they are taking up new lines of work, both paid and unpaid; they are the mainstay of social clubs, sports clubs and charities"—
as they are of political parties.
They are refusing to retire from everyday life and are doing things their way, regardless of how people expect them to act at their 'time of life'.
The standard of living of retired people has risen quite dramatically. In 1975 only 20 per cent. of retired households had access to a car, and now it is 30 per cent. Some 48 per cent. had a washing machine, but now it is 65 per cent., which helps with some of the other problems that we have mentioned. Sixty-nine per cent. had a fridge; now it is 95 per cent. Some 37 per cent. had a phone; now it is 75 per cent. Ninety-seven per cent. have a television set, so we would not be surprised that they watch on average 40 hours of television every week, which is twice the amount that young people watch. Most important in terms of comfort, 33 per cent. used to have central heating and now 61 per cent. have. As a result, we can say that they are much better housed than ever they were.
The opening speeches today dealt with how we make the system function, particularly in reference to local councils, which do a great deal of work. I have a report referred to earlier of an independent review of residential care for the elderly in the London borough of Camden. I agree with the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, whose constituency is covered, and some of whose constituents are mentioned, that the council deserves recognition for having had the guts to commission the independent report and publish it. However, the scandals described in it should never have happened. I shall read some of it into the record.
This is what the report said about Camden's care for the elderly:
effective management of residential care in Camden has broken down … The Council's concern to be a good employer became carried to a point at which elderly residents have suffered.
It presents a detailed report of each home and says of one:
We observed failure to clean up urine and faeces; residents being scolded … Standards of hygiene generally very poor and in our view contained a risk to health … Custom and practice has led to care assistants being able to take up to one hour's tea break—all at the same time … We heard of difficulty in gaining access to the building during tea breaks. We know of one resident left helpless during a tea break, lying transverse across the bed with only a vest across her shoulders and was blue with cold … the Trade Union had remained adamant that there should be no reduction in the time out taken … care is not a priority for some staff".
Another home was described in this way:
A downstairs lavatory approached by steps which is inaccessible to people using wheelchairs or walking frames. In consequence dependent residents are regularly toiletted on a commode in a four-bedded downstairs bedroom with no privacy at all.
Another home is described as having bedrooms that are "unacceptably overcrowded". Furthermore,
the lift is subject to frequent breakdowns and has been left unrepaired for as long as six weeks.
In that home the depression rate of residents is 53 per cent. Furthermore,

there has been a recent suicide of a very disturbed woman who could not be adequately supervised … Getting up of residents starts at 5.45 a.m.
Of another home, the review said:
For physically disabled residents the care system appears to have collapsed … a dirty neglected appearance of both surroundings and individuals … 14 out of 18 'incontinent' residents could in fact be kept continent with proper care. Clothing … is often dirty and unkempt, often with no underwear and in particular there is an absence of knickers—similar complaints have been voiced by relatives … We had drawn to our attention a number of incidents concerning residents. One man was reported as having been found by a visiting doctor as so soaked in urine that it had made a 'high tide' mark, which would have taken up to seven hours to form, across his shirt … some staff members expressed themselves as deeply distressed at their inability to offer good care, because some colleagues did not carry out their duties responsibly, refused orders and were aggressive and abusive. We heard allegations of fights amongst staff members and of staff having to be escorted to public transport because of fear of retribution from other staff members.
As things are we however feel it necessary to say that the Home is very close to disaster, and could easily become the focus of a major scandal.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Lady will accept that any sensible person would regard the circumstances described in that report as disgraceful. Does she also accept that it is somewhat hypocritical not to note other things said in that report, that the Department of Health and Social Security has statutory inspectorial duties and that the periods between inspections seemed to be of unacceptable duration? Does she recognise that some of the issues raised in this report would have been identified and possibly dealt with earlier if the Department had exercised its statutory duties? We will not take lessons from people who will not accept their own responsibilities.

Mrs. Currie: The DHSS does not run these homes; Camden council runs them. For the hon. Gentleman's information, may I say that I asked whether inspectors had recently visited the homes and was told that they had. I shall make available to the hon. Gentleman the report that they have just produced. They again used the words "dirty" and "untidy", and referred to "poor standards of care". It is not as if Camden does not have any money. It spends more per head on residential care and on just about everything else than any other borough. It is repeatedly compared unfavourably with other local authorities.
I cannot see how the Opposition's policies would be of any help. In the Health Service they would get rid of prescription and other charges, and that would lose at least £350 million a year. They would stop contracting out, and that would lose another £75 million. They would lose all the other cost improvements which my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) drew to our attention. They would do their best to get rid of the private sector. They say that the private sector and care of that sort is no part of Labour's philosophy. They say that their aim is to put public money into good public services. I hope to God that they are not like those in Camden.
The hon. Member for Wrexham spoke a little self-righteously about waiting lists. The waiting lists were longest when NHS staff were out on strike, and the Opposition backed that strike in every way. We saw recently the walk-out of clerical staff from Selly Oak hospital, of home helps in Liverpool and of meals on wheels staff in Hackney. That is what the Labour party supports.
The Opposition talk about reversing tax cuts. I hope that they remember that pensioners are also taxpayers and that 70 per cent, of them have income from savings which would be eroded by taxation and inflation and by what the Opposition plan to do to pension funds. It was all summed
up for us by Richard Crossman in his diary entry for Sunday 14 June 1970, when he described the Conservative years as
years of economic expansion and a tremendous rise in living
standards".
The Labour years were described as
years of hell and high taxes.
That is exactly what we would have again under Labour. Years of hell and high taxes are all that is promised by the Opposition for us, for our elderly and for everybody else. I trust that they and their motion will be rejected.

Question put, That original words stand part of the
Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 252.

Division No. 102]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dubs, Alfred


Anderson, Donald
Duffy, A. E. P.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Ashdown, Paddy
Eadie, Alex


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Eastham, Ken


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fatchett, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Faulds, Andrew


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Beith, A. J.
Fields, T. (L'poo/ Broad Gn)


Bell, Stuart
Flannery, Martin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Forrester, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Foster, Derek


Blair, Anthony
Foulkes, George


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Boyes, Roland
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Freud, Clement


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
George, Bruce


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Godman, Dr Norman


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bruce, Malcolm
Gould, Bryan


Buchan, Norman
Gourley, Harry


Caborn, Richard
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hancock, Michael


Campbell, Ian
Hardy, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Haynes, Frank


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Heffer, Eric S.


Clarke, Thomas
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clay, Robert
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Clelland, David Gordon
Home Robertson, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Howells, Geraint


Cohen, Harry
Hoyle, Douglas


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbett, Robin
Janner, Hon Greville


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
John, Brynmor


Craigen, J. M.
Johnston, Sir Russell


Crowther, Stan
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lambie, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Lamond, James


Deakins, Eric
Leadbitter, Ted


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Dobson, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Dormand, Jack
Lofthouse, Geoffrey





Loyden, Edward
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Hugh
Rooker, J. W.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


McGuire, Michael
Rowlands, Ted


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Sedgemore, Brian


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Sheerman, Barry


McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McWilliam, John
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Madden, Max
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marek, Dr John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampin NE)


Martin, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Soley, Clive


Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Meadowcroft, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David


Michie, William
Stott, Roger


Mikardo, Ian
Straw, Jack


Milian, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Nellist, David
Torney, Tom


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wainwright, R.


O'Brien, William
Wallace, James


O'Neill, Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Patchett, Terry
Wareing, Robert


Pavitt, Laurie
Weetch, Ken


Pendry, Tom
Welsh, Michael


Pike, Peter
White, James


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wigley, Dafydd


Prescott, John
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Radice, Giles
Wilson, Gordon


Randall, Stuart
Winnick, David


Raynsford, Nick
Woodall, Alec


Redmond, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Richardson, Ms Jo



Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robertson, George
Mr. Ron Davies and


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Mr. Tony Lloyd.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bryan, Sir Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Eluchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Amess, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Ancram, Michael
Budgen, Nick


Arnold, Tom
Bulmer, Esmond


Ashby, David
Burt, Alistair


Aspinwall, Jack
Butterfill, John


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Baldry, Tony
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chapman, Sydney


Batiste, Spencer
Chope, Christopher


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Churchill, W. S.


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Colvin, Michael


Blackburn, John
Conway, Derek


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Coombs, Simon


Body, Sir Richard
Cope, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Corrie, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dicks, Terry


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Derrell, Stephen


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Brinton, Tim
Durant, Tony


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dykes, Hugh


Brooke, Hon Peter
Eggar, Tim


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Emery, Sir Peter


Browne, John
Evennett, David


Bruinvels, Peter
Eyre, Sir Reginald






Fallon, Michael
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Farr, Sir John
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Finsberg, Sir Geottrey
Hunter, Andrew


Fletcher, Sir Alexander
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Fookes, Miss Janet
Irving, Charles


Forman, Nigel
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Forth, Eric
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Franks, Cecil
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Freeman, Roger
Key, Robert


Fry, Peter
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Gale, Roger
King, Rt Hon Tom


Galley, Roy
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Knowles, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Knox, David


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lang, Ian


Goodlad, Alastair
Latham, Michael


Gow, Ian
Lawler, Geoftrey


Gower, Sir Raymond
Lawrence, Ivan


Grant, Sir Anthony
Lee, John (Pendle)


Greenway, Harry
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Gregory, Conal
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Lester, Jim


Grittiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Ground, Patrick
Lightbown, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Lilley, Peter


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Lord, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Lyell, Nicholas


Hannam, John
McCrindle, Robert


Hargreaves, Kenneth
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Harvey, Robert
Macfarlane, Neil


Haselhurst, Alan
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Hawksley, Warren
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Maclean, David John


Hayward, Robert
McLoughlin, Patrick


Heathcoat-Amory, David
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Heddle, John
Madel, David


Henderson, Barry
Major, John


Hickmet, Richard
Malins, Humtrey


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Malone, Gerald


Hind, Kenneth
Maples, John


Hirst, Michael
Marland, Paul


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Marlow, Antony


Holt, Richard
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Mather, Sir Carol


Howard, Michael
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Merchant, Piers


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)





Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Silvester, Fred


Miscampbell, Norman
Sims, Roger


Moate, Roger
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Monro, Sir Hector
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Speed, Keith


Mudd, David
Speller, Tony


Murphy, Christopher
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Neale, Gerrard
Squire, Robin


Needham, Richard
Steen, Anthony


Nellist, David
Stern, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Newton, Tony
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Nicholls, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Ottaway, Richard
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thurnham, Peter


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pattie, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Trotter, Neville


Pollock, Alexander
Twinn, Dr Ian


Powell, William (Corby)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Powley, John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Waldegrave, Hon William


Price, Sir David
Waller, Gary


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Raffan, Keith
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wheeler, John


Rathbone, Tim
Whitfield, John


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rhodes James, Robert
Wood, Timothy


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roe, Mrs Marion



Rowe, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Ryder, Richard
Mr. Francis Maude and


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Mr. Michael Portillo.


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put
forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on
amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as
amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House congratulates the Government on the steps it has taken to facilitate and prolong the health and independence of elderly people; welcomes its provision for the increasing proportion of elderly and very elderly people in the population; notes the substantial increase in health care of elderly people in hospitals and in the community; and applauds the Government's success in helping elderly people to improve their quality of life.

European Court of Auditors

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors on the financial year 1985, together with the replies of the Institutions; and approves the Government's efforts to press for effective Budget discipline and proper financial control of Community expenditure.
The House has before it for scrutiny this evening the European Court of Auditors' annual report on the Community's 1985 financial year. This report offers to the Community, and to its member states in particular, a key opportunity to consider in some detail the effectiveness with which the Community's resources are in practice used. We are fortunate to have as a basis for our debate the clear and helpful report from the Select Committee on European Legislation. I should like on behalf of the Government to pay tribute to the important work of the Committee and to its thoroughness in carrying out its scrutiny role on behalf of the House.
The Government share the Committee's assessment that the court's role is a daunting one. As the range of Community activities has expanded in recent years, the court's task has been made more difficult and even more vital to the task of ensuring that the Community's finances are managed with the necessary efficiency and rigour. I am sure the House will join me in putting on record our appreciation of the importance of the court's work and our support for its endeavours. We must constantly make it clear that the same standards for which we strive in matters of national public expenditure must also be applied to the Community.
The role of the Court of Auditors' report in the Community's budget procedure is set out in the explanatory memorandum which I submitted to the House on 22 January. As the House will recall, it is the responsibility of the European Parliament, acting on a recommendation agreed by qualified majority in the Council of Ministers, to grant a discharge each year to the Commission in respect of its implementation of the Community budget. The Council bases its recommendation for discharge upon discussions of the court's annual report. The ECOFIN council will be debating this question on Monday 9 March, and comments made by hon. Members this evening will be a useful input to the Government's preparation for that discussion.
Mr. Mart will again be present at ECOFIN to present his report in his capacity as president of the court. I am pleased to be able to report to the House that over the last few years pressure from the United Kingdom has helped to ensure that these discussions reflect more fully the importance of the work of the court in the financial affairs of the Community.
I would like to highlight key areas in the court's report. The court draws attention to the need for a review of commitments outstanding which could turn out to be defunct. The United Kingdom Government support this call strongly and we look to the Commission to take further measures to weed out commitments still on the Community's books which no longer relate to real projects. The financial pressures faced by the Community mean that this must be a priority over the coming year.
The court also highlights the outstanding liabilities of the Community. A figure of 20 billion ecu has been mentioned in this context. In considering the Community's liabilities it is important to distinguish between those which relate to binding contracts entered into and those which concern wider political commitments made by the Community which have yet to be translated into financial terms. It is not always helpful to lump together definite and contingent liabilities in this way, and the resulting figures must be used with caution.
The United Kingdom's position is clear. It is normal for the Community to have outstanding liabilities, particularly in the structural funds. Indeed, in a system where some of the payment may be made a considerable time after the contract is signed this is advisable to ensure that funds are not disbursed before it is necessary to do so. However, we need to maintain stricter control over the growth of those liabilities. The Commission must ensure that outstanding debts are held to the minimum necessary for the efficient functioning of the Community. The budgetary authority decided in the 1986 budget to take major steps to redress the imbalance between commitments and payments to which the court drew attention. Now that this has been achieved, a strict implementation of budgetary discipline is required to ensure that its future decisions maintain a sensible balance in this area.
The court reiterates points made in previous years concerning the use of an intergovernmental agreement—IGA—to balance revenue and expenditure in 1985. For reasons set out at some length on other occasions, the Government do not accept this criticism and, in common with all other member states, consider that the use of an IGA in the particular circumstances of 1985 was a proper and legal means of providing a balanced budget. The Government agree strongly, however, with the underlying concern of the court to ensure that expenditure is maintained within the revenue available.

Mr. Terence Higgins: My hon. Friend has said that that brought about a balanced budget. Was it not absolutely clear that the budget did not balance and that the IGA was used to bring about a balance which did not exist within the terms of the treaty?

Mr. Brooke: As my right hon. Friend will recall, that is an issue on which he and If exchanged words on the Floor of the House and in correspondence.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: A very serious criticism has been made of the system of advances, which is described in paragraph 1.11 as being temporary, because it has become a permanent feature of the Community finances. Will my hon. Friend please answer that criticism?

Mr. Brooke: It is going a little far to say that the particular arrangements which were made in 1985, and which, as my hon. Friend says, were described as temporary, have become a permanent feature of the Communitys affairs.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Brooke: No. I want to make a little progress, and then I will gladly give way.
The court also comments in some detail on the operation of the provisional twelfths regime, which ruled Community finances from January 1985 until a 1985


Budget was finally adopted in June 1985. The court made clear that there are several unsatisfactory aspects in the manner in which the provisional twelfths regime currently operates. The Government broadly support these criticisms and will be pressing for amendments to be made to the necessary legislation in the context of amendment of the financial regulation.
The court found that the number of irregularities detected in CAP expenditure increased by 70 per cent. between 1984 and 1985, and noted the high concentration of those irregularities in some countries. The court thought that regulations should be amended to enable the Commission to intervene directly to investigate fraud. The Commission replied that it was taking steps to improve cooperation between its officials and those in member states and had put forward to the Council an amendment which would enable it to carry out inspections in member states.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend has said, and we are very pleased to hear it, that the IGA will not become a permanent feature and will not become embedded in stone for ever, but he will know that there is to be some sort of whip-round—perhaps sensibly—to deal with the vast mountains of agricultural produce and huge lakes that exist at the moment. Could my hon. Friend, who has said that the IGA will not become a permanent feature, give the House an undertaking that if this whip-round takes place, and it is a loan, and we are to be repaid that loan, the repayment will in no way be dependent upon this House agreeing to a further increase in Community own resources at a later stage?

Mr. Brooke: That was a somewhat convoluted question, but I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen): the features which were described as temporary have not become permanent. Indeed, during the 15 months in which I have held my present post, I cannot recall any discussion in the budget Council of an IGA. I acknowledge the overhang of agricultural expenditure, for which proposals will be required from the Commission and to which the Council will address itself.

Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Brooke: No, I will continue if I may. My hon. Friend will have ample opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in our less than full House tonight.
The court has taken its usual careful look at the administration of the Community's development aid. We were especially pleased to see the court's comment that administration of the Dublin plan, under which the Community and member states undertook to deliver 1–2 million tonnes of cereals to famine-affected countries in Africa in 1985, was "entirely satisfactory". It was a difficult programme to implement, but the total European effort of the Community and member states combined undoubtedly made a significant contribution to relieving famine in that year.
There is less evidence of delays in delivery of food aid than in previous years. Previous Court of Auditors reports about such delays were a significant factor in the Council's decision to reform radically the Community's food aid procedures under the United Kingdom presidency last November. We believe that the new arrangements will allow much faster response in emergencies.
Some deficiencies in the administration of aid from the European development fund are again brought to light, but at least some of the difficulties mentioned are being tackled in the implementation of the new Lome convention, which was signed by the Community and by 66 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. It came into force on 1 May 1986.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Brooke: Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene on the subject of the Lome convention?

Mr. Budgen: I hope that my hon. Friend will not pursue the tactic of talking at great length about peripheral issues to avoid answering questions that have been put to him properly by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). The House is interested in how the books will be made to balance properly, and a lot of talk about peripheral issues will not interest us very much.

Mr. Brooke: I do not wish to take issue with my hon. Friend, but I asked him whether his question was about the Lomé convention. Having heard his question, I do not think that it was. We have ample opportunity for debate this evening, and I look forward to hearing the points made by my hon. Friends and by other hon. Members.
The Lomé convention entered into force on 1 May 1986. It allows European Community aid to be better planned, more coherent and so more effective.
There is now recognition that developing countries have to be helped over the shortage of foreign exchange which prevents them making use of existing investments. There is provision in the new convention for the supply of spare parts and essential commodities, alongside more conventional investment projects. The concentration on particular sectors for Community aid and the introduction of policy commitments by recipient countries also mean that the Community can make a better evaluation of the extent to which developing countries will provide the policy environment and, if necessary, local finance to make the aid work.
In conclusion, the Government recognise the need for greater rigour in decisions on the spending totals available to the Community and in the financial control exercised over that spending. We shall continue to impress on our partners the need for the Community to live within its means. Resources are limited, and it is as important for the Community, as for its member states, to cut its coat according to its cloth.
Similarly, for any given amount of Community expenditure, it remains just as important as ever that such spending should be as efficient and cost effective as possible. The Court of Auditors has a central role in helping to bring that about and we shall continue to support the court in its efforts.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I want to agree in one sentence with what the Minister said and to welcome the Select Committee's report and its useful analysis of the report of the Court of Auditors. It makes much better reading than the large heap of papers that we have received from the Court of Auditors. However, from there on agreement between us must cease. Indeed, there did not seem to be much agreement between the Minister and his hon. Friends either.
The Minister referred to the removal of defunct commitments— that is something with which we all agree and which we want to happen. However, he was really clutching at straws in a desperate effort to find some way of reducing Community expenditure, that being the only possibility.
I find the motion puzzling. We are asked to take note of the annual report and to approve
the Government's efforts to press for effective Budget discipline and proper financial control of Community expenditure.
I am not quite sure to what the final part of that sentence refers, because budgetary discipline did not apply in 1985.It allegedly began to apply in 1986 when the own resources ceiling was put up to 1·4 per cent. However, most of us doubt that budgetary discipline applies at all.
On the Government's efforts to press for effective budget discipline, if the Prime Minister occasionally going along to the Council of Ministers and hectoring the other Ministers—telling them that we must stop spending as much in the Community—counts as that, it has been remarkably ineffective ever since the discipline was allegedly introduced.
The Court of Auditors' comments about 1985 will no doubt be repeated when it reports on 1986 and 1987. In 1985 the percentage of agricultural spending steadily increased and reached 70 per cent. In the current budgetary year, agricultural spending will overrun yet again and there will be a 5 billion ecu deficit. It is expected that the figure will range between 3 and 5 billion ecu at the end of this year, precisely for the reasons that many of us pointed out right from the start—the gap in budgetary discipline which allowed for account to be taken of changes in the exchange rate. The fall in the dollar has brought that about exactly as everybody— certainly most hon. Members present—repeatedly said it would.
Turning away from what we expect to happen in 1987 and referring back to what we are supposed to be debating, which is the Court of Auditors' report, what the Court of Auditors has to say about the way in which the Commission and certain member states run their finances shows that the notion of ever imposing budgetary discipline on that lot is little short of a farce.
Let us consider what the Court of Auditors says about the accounts in the opening paragraphs of its report, from 1·5 onwards. It states:
Setting them out in this way lays the Commission open to the accusation of not having given a true and fair view of the Community's actual financial situation.
That point is emphasised in paragraphs 1.10 and 1.11. Paragraph 1.10 states:
For the second year running, the Communities have not observed one of the fundamental principles upon which their financial organisation is based, namely the need to cover fully each year's financing needs with the equivalent amount of annual revenue …use of advances from the Member States, far from helping to amortize the 'burden of the past' … has, on the contrary, allowed it to increase throughout the financial year 1985.
And so the report goes on; there is no real attempt to control Community spending—

Mr. Budgen: What about the stocks?

Dr. McDonald: I shall come to that matter, if the hon. Gentleman will just wait for a moment or two.
Community spending continues to get out of hand, and at the end of the report the Court of Auditors says that,

had the accounts been properly presented, it would have been clear that the 1 per cent. ceiling was busted in 1985 and had approached a ceiling of 1·3 per cent. of VAT.
If the Government really want anything like financial discipline to be imposed, they could make a start by ensuring that every member Government paid. Paragraph 3.7 of the report records that, by 31 December 1985, France, Italy and Luxembourg had failed to pay the amount agreed under the intergovernmental agreement. We want to know when those amounts were paid and what happened to France, Italy and Luxembourg for delaying their payments. If major members of the Community such as France delay their payments, how can we rush to pay so nobly? How about a little delay on our part? Why do we not say to the French Government, "You pay first and we will follow"? Rather than the Prime Minister leaning on other Governments with empty hectoring, following that suggestion might be more to the point.
Paragraph 4.40—the Minister referred to this point in passing, but he was considerably more optimistic than the Court of Auditors— refers to 219 cases of irregularities involving 12 million ecu. After a long investigation, the recoveries made in 1985 a result of overpayment related to 70 cases for the amount of only 1·3 million ecu. To suggest that there is any greater efficiency or that the Community can make any proper checks on that is to be far too optimistic. Paragraph 4.40 states:
Faced with the same observation for the financial year 1984, the Commission agreed to give the reasons for this imbalance; at the present time, the Court has still not received the answers promised by the Commission, which are even more necessary considering the considerable increase in 1985.
Irene— not a lady, but a computerised system—should have been introduced., but is still delayed. it is to be used for recording and analysing frauds and irregularities reported by member states. Not surprisingly, the olive oil problem referred to in paragraphs 4.64 and 4.65 still exists, despite— and this shows why the Minister's optimism is so ill-founded— the confident prediction of the Commission in reply to the Court of Auditors' special report of June 1985. Perhaps the Minister could say a little more about what happens on issues such as olive oil and what progress has been made on the recording and analysing of frauds and irregularities, instead of expressing the type of optimism that he did.
Table 4.5 shows clearly the costs of public and private storage in 1984 and 1985. It states that the commission's accounting procedures make it no longer possible to get full or accurate information for a particular financial year. The Select Committee quite rightly drew attention to that fact. The Commission is not in a position to provide a full disclosure of costs and financing of stocks, an increasing share of which is borne directly by the member states. By November 1985 the total value of the cereals in storage was two fifths of the value of the stock of all farm products. The price package of 1986–87 is better, hut, in the Court's view, does not go anywhere near to achieving a solution.
The Government, in their motion, refer to their pressing for budgetary discipline, but, quite honestly. there is little sign of such pressures having any effect in 1985. There is little sign that they will have had any effect in 1986. As for 1987, we all know full well that the budget will run into enormous difficulties and that, yet again, there will have to be a Government whip-round, probably


towards the end of this year—though, if we say that at this stage, we shall probably find that it comes earlier rather than sooner.
I suppose that that is one of the events that the Government hope will happen after a general election, so that they will not have to deal with the problem and come to the House with their collective tail between their legs and say, "Sorry, budget discipline failed. The 1·4 ceiling has been busted. We have not succeeded in reforming agricultural policy. We have not found proper agreement. By the way, talk has been going on with other members of the Community about "possibilities." Who knows what the discussions that the Foreign Secretary has been having over the past few days entail for future expenditure, but most commentators suggest that the future of that expenditure and the future Community burden on us is not at all bright.
When we are asked to approve the Government's pressure to bring about budgetary discipline, we can record yet another year of dismal failure that the Court of Auditors has quite properly and fully exposed. If a company kept its finances in such a way, it would not be allowed to conduct any business. In its present state, we should not allow the Commission to have vast sums of public money to fritter away in such a fashion.

Mr. Terence Higgins: The House should be grateful to the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), for its report. I should like to refer to a point made in the report. It states:
"It—
That is to say, the Court—
notes that some Member States are not prepared to cooperate with the Court and the Commission over access to information … with the result that the court has not so far been able to discharge fully its responsibilities for the audit of the VAT own resources and the EAGGF Guarantee.
What will the Government do about this matter? Quite clearly, it is not acceptable that taxpayers' money should go out in that form. The body responsible for auditing such matters cannot get information from other Governments. My hon. Friend said that he would take into account the views that are expressed in this debate when the matter is discussed in the wider forum. I hope that he will express in the strongest possible terms that this is not acceptable. I want to know what he can do about it, and also what he proposes to do about it.
We were assured by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister some time ago that as more countries became net contributors, this would provide an effective guarantee of budgetary discipline. However, one has only to look at the long written answer that my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave on 17 February 1987 to see that he said that he voted against the Council's proposals but that all the other member states voted in favour. So much for the argument that the most effective guarantee of budgetary discipline is the fact that more countries are now becoming net contributors.
As for the wording of the motion, it
takes note of the Annual Report.
It does not approve it. Last year I pointed out in our debate that it would be more appropriate for the House to approve it. There is certainly a case for spelling out in

greater detail the kind of concerns that are expressed in the Select Committee's report, so that when they are discussed in the European forum my hon. Friend can put clearly before that wider group the fact that the House of Commons has expressed the view, for example, that it is deplorable that the information has not been provided to enable the court to carry out its duties.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my right hon. Friend have any evidence that suggests that the auditors' report is discussed by Ministers at any time?

Mr. Higgins: I understood my hon. Friend the Minister to say that that will happen. if that is not so, perhaps he will correct the matter in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) may be right. If so, that would be very bad indeed.
The second part of the motion
approves the Government's efforts to press for effective Budget discipline and proper financial control of Community expenditure.
As the Treasury Select Committee has pointed out on previous occasions, it is quite clear that effective budgetary discipline has not been imposed. The motion implies as much, although the increase in the VAT ceiling was made only on the clear understanding that there would be effective budgetary discipline. However, all that we are told in the motion is that we should approve the Government's efforts to press for effective budgetary discipline. That has not yet been realised, but the increase in the VAT ceiling has been realised and the money paid under that ceiling has been realised, too.
Most of the problems are caused by the common agricultural policy. It does not meet the case for Ministers to come back after negotiations and say that they have had a splendid success over the CAP. It is not possible to patch it up. The only effective way to deal with the CAP is to abolish it. It is incapable of reform. This week's edition of The Economist contains a very cogent article. I could not hope to express the matter as clearly as it is expressed in that article. It relates to the green currencies, the multiple green currencies and the various monetary compensatory amounts that have been introduced.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister a very simple question. Why is it that agriculture should be protected from fluctuations in exchange rates when no other industry is? I do not understand why that should be so. Perhaps he will give us an answer to that rather simple question, since many of the problems to which the Court of Auditors has given attention stem precisely from those arrangements.
I ought to spend a moment or two on the criticisms that are made in the Court of Auditors' report. It states very clearly, as it did last year, that the Court particularly regrets that a situation has been gradually allowed to arise that increasingly contravenes the requirements of a balanced budget and that the institutions have not always exercised the budgetary powers conferred upon them under the treaty. My hon. Friend said that all these things were temporary and not a permanent arrangement. That is contrary to the clear implication of paragraph 1.12 of the Court's report; referring to paragraph 1.10, it says:
This being so, calling for advances from the Member States, though presented as a temporary emergency measure, will inevitably"—
I stress the word "inevitably"—
become a permanent financing tool if the Community is both to remain within the 1·4 per cent. limit established for 1986


and 1987 for the Community rate of VAT own resources and start seriously to amortize part of the accumulated past liabilities which, alone, already represent the equivalent of more than one year's VAT revenue for the Communities.
For my hon. Friend to come before the House and to say that this is all a temporary arrangement is contrary to what the Court is clearly arguing, namely, that it is inevitable that it should go on from being a temporary arrangement year after year to becoming a permanent arrangement. I hope that he will accept that point and tell us what the Government propose to do about it.
My hon. Friend put great stress, as indeed the Court does, on the question of the outstanding commitments or liabilities. He distinguished between binding contractual commitments and political ones. Let us concentrate for a moment on the binding contractual commitments. My hon. Friend was not quantitative in his approach. Could we be told what he understands the binding contractual commitments to be in the period covered by the report and in subsequent periods to the extent that figures are available?
My hon. Friend emphasised, as the Court does, that some of the commitments may be defunct. It is greatly to be hoped that some are defunct. Of course, the numbers that are likely to be defunct are very small compared with the total. Just to grasp at straws by saying that some of the commitments probably will not be realised is to cast on one side the much more important question, of the size of the commitments and liabilities that are likely to be realised.
The position outlined by the Court of Auditors is deplorable. The Government must get a grasp on it rather than seek to suggest that all is allright, that we need not bother and so on. No one who reads this document could possibly believe that that is so. I am sure my hon. Friend does not believe it. Since no doubt we shall return to this year after year, let us on future occasions have motions which set out in the clearest possible terms that the position outlined in the court's report is not acceptable and that the Government are not prepared to accept it.

Sir Russell Johnston: As a general principle I always prefer agreeing to disagreeing with people.

Mr. Marlow: Does that apply to the SDP?

Sir Russell Johnston: If I may respond to that, it is indeed a principle of the alliance.
I am happy to begin by associating myself with the points made by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) at the beginning of his remarks. Clearly it is not only unsatisfactory but wrong that information should be denied to the Court of Auditors. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point and say that Her Majesty's Government are as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman to see the matter corrected.
Like the Minister, when I looked at the report of the Select Committee on European Legislation my eye also fell on the sentence about the Court of Auditors having to face a range which is "increasingly formidable" and a task which is "correspondingly daunting". I accept that not only as a comment but as a compliment to its 12 members.
To those hon. Members who will probably use this debate as yet another opportunity to knock the European Community around the ring I would say—the hon.
Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) looks shocked at that suggestion, but, judging from my experience, he should not be shocked—the Court, in the face of complex problems, succeeds in producing penetrating and effective criticism. The members of the Court deserve congratulation for that success. The Community also deserves some congratulation for having an instrument as effective and forthright as the Court of Auditors. It is welcome that the reply of the Commission refers to changes in administration. The idea of a four-year financial perspective is also welcome.
It is not easy to deal with a wide-ranging report in a short time, and I shall concentrate on a number of central issues. The right hon. Member for Worthing quoted from the conclusion of the first part of the Court's report. I would like to quote another paragraph, which I fear is equally critical. The right hon. Gentleman quoted paragraph 1.11 about the advances, but paragraph 1.10 bluntly states that
the Communities have not observed one of the fundamental principles upon which their financial organisation is based, namely the need to cover fully each year's financing needs with the equivalent amount of annual revenue. What is more, use of advances … a preponderant and growing share of these liabilities does not correspond to this natural growth of commitments entered into in connection with future common policies, but rather corresponds to the systematic carrying-over of previous budget deficits and to postponing the task of accounting for certain costs arising from agricultural stocks to future budgets.
That is a serious fundamental criticism of the budgetary position. The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to another criticism that I, from my pro-European standpoint, find as grave as the financial criticisms. That criticism is contained in paragraph 1.12, which states:
This prospect is all the more regrettable as recourse to advances from the Member States has already shown, in 1984 and 1985, the extent of the damage done to the financial autonomy of the Communities which was the objective of the authors of the Decision of 21 April 1970 on the Communities' own resources. The fact is that the use of a system of advances is tantamount to renationa.lising the budget of the Communities and, in so doing, negating the objective of the above-mentioned decision. Secondly, the need to obtain from each Member State prior approval of the advances reintroduces the power of individual veto into the Communities' budgetary decision-taking procedure, which has hitherto been characterised by voting by qualified majority.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will say something about that.
Those who believe that there are considerable advantages to be derived from our membership of the Community cannot baulk at the grave position of the budget. There is an urgent need to reform the budget.
Hand-to-mouth solutions, such as non-reversible advances, carrying-over of deficits to the following years and those suggested by the right hon. Gentleman are not long-term solutions. That is clearly stated by the court and the Commission.
With respect to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), I did not think that she was fair to castigate the Commission. The Commission's record is good. It has tried very hard to put pressure upon the Council of Ministers to act with more prudence and probity than it has done in the past. I do not believe that the blame rests at the Commission's door.
The increase in the VAT element of our resources following the Fontainebleau summit was largely swallowed up by carried-over commitments from previous


years, Britain's rebate, and agriculture, which has left little for new policies. The 1987 budget, which was agreed two and a half weeks ago, will be about £3 billion short. That is a fact. It might be a bit more or less, depending on the United States dollar and the agricultural harvest. It will still be short of the figure that is necessary to cover inescapable commitments to the common agricultural policy.
The need for budgetary reform is obvious, but it is important for the Government to realise that one will not achieve that unless one takes a collective attitude. Constantly to put national interests, which often are electoral interests, before the overall benefit of the Community is a certain way to create future budgetary problems.
I know that it has been said before, and that it does not diminish the force of the criticisms that have been made, but one should remind oneself that the overall budget of the European Community, through which 12 countries coordinate a range of policies for joint action, and which represents them on the world stage in all trade, agriculture and fisheries negotiations, is about three fifths of Britain's social security budget. So one should get it into perspective. That does not reduce the force of the criticisms made, but it is something that one should remember.
In the view of members of the alliance, the structural funds are an important component in the budget. We would argue for an increase in investment to deal with the problems of unemployment. There is no doubt that the gap between rich and poor regions of the European Community, which is already a major problem, is likely to get worse still as a result of the achievement of the internal market by 1992. One is in favour, but there must be some checks or the situation will become much worse. That is the major issue, which Liberals in Europe will discuss at our European Community conference of European Liberal Democrats, in Lisbon, at the beginning of April.
The Select Committee's report refers to the regional fund and the fact that
ten years after the creation of the Fund it is still hard to assess its effectiveness.
That is true. But one of the reasons for that is the lack of information about additionality of aid from the Community and the extra development effort that such aid will make possible. Therefore, we in this country contribute to the inability of the Community to assess that properly. We have long criticised the United Kingdom practice of EC aid being simply swallowed up by the Treasury instead of being clearly viewed as additional to the United Kingdom's own effort.
It is perhaps too early to say anything specific or definite about what Mr. Delors has been saying, but it is impossible to have such a debate on the Court of Auditors comments without making some reference to Delors. I am surprised that that has not yet been done. Although it is not possible to be firm about it, on a reading of his presentation to the European Parliament last week, I believe that it is a thoughtful, practical and forward-looking basis for negotiation. That is the sort of approach and initiative that one would have liked to see occur during the United Kingdom presidency.
I have said many times in these debates that when the United Kingdom— very successfully, I do not deny—

negotiated the rebate, it should have not simply negotiated a rebate, but tried to negotiate a fair general basis for budgetary payments. The only fair basis seemed to be some relationship between gross national product and the payment that the country made. That is what is contained in the Delors proposal. Equally, Delors said that without CAP discipline everything else is meaningless. I accept that completely. His aim is to allow an increase in European Community income from about £27 billion as it will be this coming year to £36 billion by 1992. That is a modest objective if one is to have realistic increased expenditure on research, the environment, regional and social funds and matters of that nature.
If the Community criticises itself, as the Court of Auditors has done, it is seized upon by people who criticise every aspect of the European Community. We continue to believe that the Community is essential to Britain's future prosperity and security and influence in the world. We should take the lead in seeking more effective co-operation with our European partners over the widest possible range of issues.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Following the remarks of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), one is tempted to discount slightly the remarks and advice of the Opposition spokesman and also perhaps some of my hon. Friend's advice because their motives are bound to be a little suspect, at least politically. The Labour party seemingly is in favour of a huge expansion of public spending, but is not in favour of Commission public spending. It is always severe about measuring and testing it. I suspect some of my hon. Friend's motives slightly, because their criticisms transcend in an existential way more than just looking at the Court of Auditors.
It is equally possible, perhaps in a reverse sense, not least as a member of the Select Committee, to express some doubts and ask some searching questions about this annual examination by the Court of Auditors. Obviously and manifestly some of these practices, procedures and problems are still unsatisfactory. Therefore, we pay tribute to the Court of Auditors and its developing work, and for the manner in which it has established its own collective corpus and attitude in trying to examine properly Community expenditure. This is an enormous report, and akin to that the Select Committee's comments are traditionally rather long on this subject.
One of the encouraging aspects of the report for enthusiastic Europeans like myself is that the Court of Auditors is presided over by Mr. Marcel Mart from Luxembourg, who is an extremely enthusiastic and creative European, like many Luxembourgers, but none the less a good and effective guardian of this type of scrutiny of Community expenditure.
The overriding conclusion from this report, from the annual report and from the Select Committee's own examination of them is that the Community's budget problems are, to some extent, substantially artificial because of the ceiling constraints. When all the financial pressures are there— financial pressures which exist equally in the member states which do not have those constraints—there is no ceiling; there is just a deficit in the member states. In the Community budget there is this artificial constraint and ceiling, about which some hon. Members are enthusiastic.
The other related problem is in trying to get information from the member states, including ourselves. The Court of Auditors has said in previous reports that it did not get the right kind of information from this country as well as others. It is a general problem, perhaps applicable to one or two members more than most, but none the less is not necessarily to be singled out in a highly discriminatory way as a piece of Daily Express-type criticism of foreign countries and the way that they run their finances. It is also a developing problem because in many areas the Commission is unable to get the right information, and the Commission does not give efficient and correct answers to the Court Auditors, and the court is groping towards the truth.
The main problem, highlighted by the Committee's report and the report of the Court of Auditors, is the liabilities that have arisen and that are producing an enormous deficit that has to be made up. The Commission needs to draw up a list of the financial liabilities that have accumulated. The Community needs to observe fundamental principles of financial planning. Within the current framework, with which I disagree, as hon. Members will know, but which has to be adhered to, each year's financing needs have to be covered with an equivalent amount of annual revenue, and a growing share of liabilities has come not from the growth of commitments but from the carrying over from the previous budget of deficit figures, and the postponing of accounting for certain costs that arise principally from agricultural stocks.
The Commission has been unduly criticised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald)— I agree with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber on that—but it needs to be much more active, energetic and efficient in co-ordinating the supervisory role, to get a better result for the whole of the Community, rather than just be more critical of what is happening. The number of member states not wishing to co-operate with the court will, I hope, rapidly diminish—this is still too much of a disturbingly strong manifestation.
There are still all the weaknesses of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, which is an intractable problem. I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Minister, who has to give advice to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the way in which it should represent United Kingdom interests, and Community interests, as the two should fit together, in the Agricultural Council and the Budget Council.
I am worried by the fact that the Commission's literal instrumentation of cash management needs altered practices to become more efficient. There are still many differing habits and practices in the banking sense between different member states, and these are difficult to harmonise and bring into a single coherent whole for both the Court of Auditors and the Commission.
Better use should be made of the lessons learnt in connection with previous regional aid disbursements and regional aid measures to prevent similar problems and to produce a much more realistic forecast of what is likely to happen. There are parts of the Community budget that still remain unsatisfactory, and others that will be handled well from now on. One example is not particularly relevant to the Court of Auditors report, but will, I hope, be a growing feature in the future. It is the amount of money dispensed in the central Community organism on research and development. There is a raging debate in the council

of research Ministers on this subject. That, too, will be a difficult sector for the Court of Auditors to monitor in the future.
Progress is being made. Equally, European enthusiasts, and people who are keen on the Community, such as myself and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, are entitled to be stringent and observant of financial controls and scrutiny. We need to encourage the Court of Auditors to have much stronger authority and powers. That must, to some extent, come from legislative changes within the Community, because some members of the Court complain that their powers are insufficient, and that they do not have the direct and determining power to intervene, visit the member states and get the proper information out of the local national public sector accountants that they should have to do a proper job. That is all a million miles away— probably much to the chagrin of the Labour party— from saying, in a transcendental fashion, that everything in the Community is rotten. That is just a feature of the painful, developmental stage in the Community, and I have every confidence in the future.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) at the end of his speech. When any auditor of any organisation feels that he does not have sufficient powers, that shows that there is something not quite right. That in itself is a danger signal, although I understand the hon. Gentleman's feeling that it is not as serious as some other hon. Members have said that it is.
As chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, I thank the Minister of State, Treasury and other hon. Members for their kind remarks. Our report on the auditors' report comes out every year and is part of a series of weekly reports that the Committee issues when the House is sitting. It comes under HC22 and is our ninth report of this Session. These reports provide a useful compendium of the legislation that is likely to have legal or political impact on the United Kingdom. Some of that legislation we debate, and some we think should be reported without debate.
Perhaps our report is not as complete as it might be. For example, the debate that we had yesterday on the distribution of cheap food was reported by the Committee through a documentary accident in that it came just within our terms of reference. With the coming of the Single European Act— assuming that it is passed— some actions, especially those taken by the Commission, will not come within the terms of reference of the Committee. The Committee drew this to the attention of the House in its second special report last May. I am quite sure that, being a gentleman of financial stringency and documentary exactness, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury would riot wish the Committee to be hindered by an accident of terms of reference, particularly as the Select Committee of the House collectively have powers which enable comprehensive reports to be made.
I now turn to the Court of Auditors' report. It is worth putting on the record some of the Committee's summary. We receive from the House some thanks for our work, and my Committee is one of the best staffed of the Select Committees. That is as it should be, because some of this legislation is complex and difficult and on occasions takes some disentangling. In our report we say:


The Court concludes (para 1.10) that, for the second year running, the Communities have not observed one of the fundamental principles upon which their financial organisation is based, namely the need to cover fully each year's financing needs with the equivalent amount of annual revenue. What is more, use of advances from the Member States, far from helping to amortize the 'burden of the past'— apart from a few timid attempts to depreciate agricultural stocks— has, on the contrary, allowed it to increase throughout the financial year 1985.
That is a mild qualification, at least in accountancy terms. The heavy qualification has already been referred to by hon. Members who quoted paragraph 1.21 about member states not being prepared to co-operate with the Court. In that context I should like to quote to the House a little more detail on this matter. It is contained in paragraph 3.19 on page 32 of the auditors' report. On this important matter they say:
The Court was able to carry out and complete these enquiries"—
that is, into VAT,—
in the following Member States: Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Other member States, however, refused to accept that such enquiries were within the court's sphere of authority".
That point was raised by the hon. Member for Harrow, East.
Specifically, Italy and Luxembourg refused to provide the Court with tax statistics, France would not agree to supply all the information needed for a description of the systems and the FR of Germany, France, Italy and Luxembourg refused the Court leave to carry out compliance tests.
There we have a clear indication of at least some disagreement about powers, and one might think that those powers ought to be made clear or increased by legislation if the need arises. Our report also deals with this important matter of the burden of the past. I shall quote from our report:
The Court also lists a number of other liabilities, either firm or contingent, and calculates that by adding these to the outstanding commitments already described, the Communities' total liabilities at the end of 1985 amounted to about 20 billion ECU (·12 billion). It comments that the way in which these liabilities were then set out was partial and heterogeneous, incomplete and hard to grasp. It sees this as leaving the Commission vulnerable to the charge of not having given a true and fair view of the community's actual financial situation. It points to specific steps which could be taken to improve presentation, and stresses that a full and clear 'calender of maturities' would oblige the budgetary authority to face up to its responsibilities, and enable it to draw the appropriate conclusions with full knowledge of the facts (paras 1.3–1.6).
I have searched in the reply of the Commission, particularly on page 192, but I cannot see any reference to the suggestion of the introduction of "calendar of maturities". Surely, in any description of the liabilities of any firm, a calendar of maturities is something that is necessary in order to show the full and fair view of the Community's affairs.
I ask the Minister two questions. We know that the audit report has to have a discharge, and before it is discharged by the Strasbourg body it is discussed by the Council of Ministers. Why could it not recommend to the Parliament-Assembly that before a discharge is granted there should be proper powers, or at least a commitment to give the increased powers at issues, to the Court of Auditors? There is clearly some difficulty there, as I have shown by the quotation. Secondly, why could it not insist on the calendar of maturities? There, at least would be two

tools whereby the necessary and proper mechanism of discharge, instead of being something that one suspects is automatic and not really taken with the necessary seriousness, could be used to ensure that we do get something of a grip, if not on the major financial difficulties with which we are familiar, certainly with the tools of the auditors' trade, which although they are in the hands of the Audit Commission, appear not to be as great or powerful as it would wish.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked, not for the first time, that there should be some extension of powers to the Court of Auditors. To a marked extent, he goes against the principles that he has so consistently fought for.
Those who ask for more public expenditure to be made through the EEC speak often as thought the EEC were a unitary state. They speak as though it had an apparatus of investigation, and apparatus of police, of public prosecutions and of EEC criminal law. It has no such apparatus and I suggest that it never will. Even if, for the sake of argument, he and others were successful in persuading the nation states of the EEC to allow the Court of Auditors to investigate more effectively, he would still never overcome the inclination of nation states to regard the EEC funds as a pot of gold which is contributed by others; a pot of gold into which they are very pleased to put the hands of their constituents and citizens even if at times they know that their constituents and fellow citizens are not entitled to put their hand into that pot of gold.
If the hon. Gentleman thinks for one moment that the EEC, for instance, could ever have its own police and investigation department he should think carefully. Let us suppose that he persuades the EEC to allow the Court of Auditors to serve notice on the Italians to allow people to investigate how many olive trees there are in the length and breadth of Italy. It is found, for the sake of argument, that they are claiming for olive trees which cover an area greater than the whole of Italy. Some other people haul off some distinguished gentlemen from the toe of Italy and suggest that they might be indicted for EEC fraud. There would be great disturbances in the toe of Italy. That would wreck and rock the constitution of Italy and there would be a risk that Italy would wish to withdraw from the EEC. That will never be done.
People, like my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and the vehement supporters of the EEC in the SDP, had better understand that every time they ask for more collective expenditure through the EEC they are in effect saying that an unknown proportion of it will inevitably be misused and some of it will be the subject of fraud. There is no way whatever in which that can be stopped, because this institution does not have the characteristics or authority of a unitary state and no member state wishes it to have that.
Hon. Gentlemen may not be as dishonest as Italians, but they wish to see their constituents get a greater proportion of the EEC cake than other nations. They want to get out more than they put in. That is essentially a duplicitous, even dishonest, attitude to the EEC.

Sir Russell Johnston: rose—

Mr. Budgen: No. So long as we extend the expenditure of the EEC, we shall have to grin and bear enormous elements of waste.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I wish to make four points in this brief debate.
First, I congratulate the EEC on its administration of aid through the European development fund to sub-Saharan Africa in the famine year of 1985. There was a slow start to that programme, but by the end of the year the fund had disbursed the necessary assistance effectively to help the starving people of Africa. The main support from the British Government to the starving people of sub-Saharan Africa in their terrible plight came through the EEC.
The EEC arranged an airlift not only of European food supplies to the Sudan but of American food to the western part of the Sudan and to Chad to avert famine there. That is a proud record and it resulted from a great deal of hard work in the Commission in the DG VIII which administers the European development fund. That is the good news. The rest are points of criticism which I make more in sorrow than in anger. Like many hon. Members, I support the EEC and wish to see its affairs administered and conducted properly.
I wish to concentrate on the periphery—part II of the report on the administration of the European development fund.
Secondly, I shall deal with the way the European development fund is allocated. At the beginning of part II a table shows how its funds from Yaounde to Lomé 2 have been committed and then disbursed. The same problem exists in the European development fund— that of rolling forward one year's programme to another. Several hon. Members have referred to this. We are never certain how much will be drawn down on the European development fund and, therefore, how much will be debited against our aid budget so it is extremely difficult for our national aid budget to he accurate in disbursing funds. [Interruption.] I am hurrying, but there are four points to be made.

Mr. Marlow: There are three minutes left.

Mr. Wells: All right. My hon. Friend is just delaying me.
Table 1 in part II shows that we still have not disbursed or even committed 34 mecu from the 1976 Yaounde 1 commitment. That rolls through Lomé 1 and 2 and we are now on Lomé 3.
I should like my hon. Friend the Minister, if he is going to have a detailed discussion on the findings of the Court of Auditors, to raise one particular matter in Brussels. Officials run around trying to get an "umbrella" agreement, as it is called—a commitment to disburse a certain amount of money which has been pre-allocated on some unknown basis to each of the countries—and then there is an indicative programme. I suggest that that is the wrong way to administer an aid programme. First, the developmental needs of those countries should be identified and then a programme which is properly focused on those needs should be developed in agreement with them. But the Court of Auditors referring to the programme in some of the states in which the European development programme is administered, said in paragraph 11 of part II:

The bottlenecks which these projects have encountered prove that an important stage has been omitted in the planning process, namely that of compiling an accurate list of the priority needs of the national economy, prior to making a judicious selection of the measures to be promoted.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would take up the point about the administration of the European development fund and the way in which it decides which projects it will support and what the objective is.
Thirdly, there seems to be no co-ordination between my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury and my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. It seems to me that they do not get together to discuss the European development fund programme, so there is no British control over the second most important programme, in terms of money. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the machinery is set up to establish the administration of the European development fund and to put right some of the aspects about which I have been talking.
Fourthly, there is no co-ordination between the objectives of the European development fund in many of the same countries in which member states of the European Economic Community also have aid programmes. I have seen on the ground the confusion between the two groups with several member states competing with the fund's objectives. Often the European development fund gets the slowest moving and worst development project simply because it is much slower at agreeing and then permitting draw-down. As the figures which I cited earlier show, it still has not disbursed money which was originally committed in 1976.
The Court of Auditors brought these important points of administration to our attention. It has complimented the European Community on disbursing the aid programme in Africa during those starvation conditions. This contrasts sharply with the court's report for the previous year which showed that disbursements were very small— in fact, only about two months' worth took place. The court was rightly critical of that.
There is good news and bad news. I hope that my hon . Friend the Minister will ask those questions so that we can have a more tightly administered budget.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The Community exists. The Community will continue to exist. The Community should be about regulation—regulating those issues at Community level that are best done at Community level. It should be about deregulation, so that we may have a unified Common Market by the year 1992. which I support. But I wonder whether it should be. as it is at the moment, so much about money.
Two reasons why I wonder whether it should he so much about money are highlighted in the auditors' report that we have before us today. The first is the point made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and equally eloquently by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), and that is the olive oil swindle which comes up year after year after year in the auditors' report. We know why the swindle takes place and we know perfectly well that nobody is going to do anything about it. This is the nature of Community finance.
There is another equal problem which we can see on top of the common agricultural policy, which is always a great


waste of money, and that is that we notice in the auditors' report that Italy, which we are told has a greater gross national product than the United Kingdom, pays a smaller VAT share. Could my hon. Friend explain to the House how this comes about? I have a pretty shrewd idea. That is because of, again, the nature of Community finance, the imprecision of Community finance and the strings that are pulled within Community finance. This is one reason why the Community should have a smaller rather than a larger area of financial control.
There are two specific points that I want to put to my hon. Friend, given the nature of the abuse and the waste of financial resources that take place through the Community and are bound to continue to take place through the Community. The first is that we know there is going to be a whip-round to get rid of the agricultural surpluses. Her Majesty's Government will be asked to fork out some of our hard-earned taxpayers' money as a loan to the Community to solve this problem, and this problem should be solved—[Interruption.] Could I have my hon. Friend's attention? I am perfectly prepared to give way to my hon. Friend if he wants to give me the answer now rather than in his speech at the end of the debate. Will the House be asked to approve this loan? If the House is to be asked to approve this loan, can my hon. Friend say at this stage, to make life much easier in the long run, that the repayment of the loan will be in no way dependent upon the United Kingdom Government agreeing to an increase in Community own resources? It is a question that I have asked my hon. Friend once. I am asking him a second time. I am prepared to give way if my hon. Friend wants to intervene in my speech at this stage or—my hon. Friend is nodding. I believe that he is going to come to this point when he winds up the debate later on. I am very grateful for that.
There is one other point that I would like to make before I sit down. At the moment, we are on the basis of a 1·4 per cent. VAT. Yesterday, Mr. Delors suggested that we should increase from 1·4 per cent. VAT to 1·4 per cent. of GNP which, as we know, is equivalent to 2 per cent. VAT— a massive increase in Community resources. There is no suggestion that the Community competence in terms of policies that will require Community finance should be increased, so the increase in Community resources can mean but one thing: that those policies for which the Community is responsible will become yet more expensive than they are at the moment. Given the lack of proper financial control that we see within the Court of Auditors report, I am sure the whole House would be grateful if my hon. Friend would say here and now that Her Majesty's Government have no intention whatever of following the line put out by Delors last week.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I welcome the Government's deep commitment to imposing some order and financial discipline on the Community, but rhetoric itself is not enough. Those who are anxious to impose an order of priorities and a discipline on the total Community budget must also tackle the more difficult issue of how to tackle the institutions of the Community to ensure that they do not remain, as they are now in a technical sense, irresponsible. As other Conservative Members have said, they are too much the prisoners of those who want to

spend. There is an insufficient central authority in Brussels whose job it is to determine the maximum level of the budget and also the priorities within the maximum. People who are concerned about the budget must address that issue in the near future.

Mr. Brooke: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond as briskly as I can to this interesting debate, the text of which I propose to send to Mr. Mart, the President of the court, to Vice-President Christophersen of the Commission, and to Herr Aigner, the Chairman of the European Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control, whom I had the pleasure of welcoming to this country last year.
Inevitably, the debate has gone wider than the Court of Auditors report. I shall touch on a series of issues that have been raised. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) pressed for budget discipline. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) expressed some surprise about the parliamentary answer that I gave on 17 February. The budget that the Council proposed to reach in conjunction with the Parliament in the course of the past fortnight stuck very closely to budget discipline, and I am delighted' that discipline was maintained. The countries that are net contributors played a large part in that process.
The hon. Member for Thurrock referred to the issue of stocks. I agree with her that, by definition, their depreciation is a problem and it is one that the British Government would wish to be attended to. However, the critical point is to prevent the stocks arising in the first place. The hon. Lady referred to the fact that the ceiling was busted in 1987. She must concert her position with her hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), because in the last debate on this subject, he criticised the Government for having left the budget unfinished when we left the presidency. The only way in which we could have concluded the budget at that juncture would have been for us to break budget discipline; we were determined not to do that. As to her likeness to a company's trading and to its auditing, the likeness is much more clearly to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the proceedings of this House than to a company.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing asked me several specific questions relating to the co-operation of member states. The court's rights of access are clearly set out in the treaty and it is not for the United Kingdom to comment on the way in which other member states interpret that. Ultimately, that is for the European Court of Justice to decide and the United Kingdom supports the Court of Auditors in exploiting to the full its treaty powers of investigation. To a degree, that is also an answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I give an assurance that the matter will be discussed in ECOFIN on 9 March, in the same way that I participated in an ECOFIN discussion last year.
As to the agrimonzetary agreement, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing also asked a question, and on which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) intervened, we are pressing for reform of the green rate system—especially to break the link between agricultural prices and movements in the strongest currency, which simply tends to increase prices and expenditure. I take the point about the protection of one part of the economy in terms of the fluctuations in exchange rates.
As to the issue of rolling forward—

Sir Trevor Skeet: Why should agriculture be protected from fluctuations in the exchange rates when nothing else is?

Mr. Brooke: I was saying that that very question informed the attitude with which we are looking at the proposals which the commission is now bringing forward.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing asked a series of questions about binding commitments. Paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 of the court's report list the outstanding commitments and the other liabilities of the Community at the end of 1985. The major binding items are some 11,000 mecu of outstanding commitments, some of which may no longer relate to real projects— the Commission is urgently reviewing this point—and the 5,650 mecu estimated cost for the future disposal of agricultural intervention stocks, to which the hon. Member for Thurrock referred. Following the successful agricultural council, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last December, positive steps are now being taken to resolve that issue.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) raised the question of additionality. Payments from the European Community budget enable United Kingdom public expenditure programmes, including those to which the payments relate, to be maintained at levels higher than could otherwise have been afforded. United Kingdom policy is similar to that adopted by other member states. The court noted previously that most member states' reimbursements, notably from the regional development fund, were added to expenditure allocated generally for regional development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr.
Dykes) welcomed the report, and I welcome his sympathy for me on agricultural issues.
The hon. Member for Newham, South raised the question of the burden of the past. During my opening speech I touched on very much the same figures as he quoted. He asked whether before discharge the Council of Ministers could recommend that the Court be given more powers to investigate. Its powers are clearly set out in article 206(3) to which, to some extent, I alluded earlier.
He also asked for a calendar of maturities. We are all agreed on the need for full information on all the Community's actual and potential liabilities. To the extent that policy decisions are required concerning the liquidation of outstanding commitments, they need to be taken by the Community's budgetary authority; no purely mechanistic timetable can be laid down.
At official level discussions on this issue in Brussels, the Commission agreed to the need to improve its presentation of the information already available, and the court expressed itself satisfied with that response.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) made speeches that I shall certainly study. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford made a thoughtful speech about aid. To my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I say that the issue of value for money is one to which we should also pay attention, and which was not adequately covered in my view by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber.
Finally, to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who asked a specific question, I say that there is no question of additional resources being made available this year. The Community must live within its means. That is the way in which I concluded my earlier speech, and I am delighted to reiterate my remarks now.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors on the financial year 1985, together with the replies of the Institutions; and approves the Government's efforts to press for effective Budget discipline and proper financial control of Community expenditure.

CROWN PROCEEDINGS (ARMED FORCES) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
 That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or Government department in consequence of the provisions of that Act— [Mr. Malone.]

Agricultural Land

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Malone.]

Mr. Anthony Steen: The purpose of this debate is to highlight one of the most significant and allembracing dilemmas relating to land use that has been faced by any Government of this country for many years. What will the British countryside look like in the 1990s? What will be there? Will there be more towns, more fields under cultivation, or just waste land, more derelict land, more factories? I believe that we are at the dawn of a new era—a new agricultural revolution. For many of us it is so close that perhaps we cannot see what is happening.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning has thought this a sufficiently important debate to come here tonight to reply to it. It shows that the Government are seriously considering the issues that I shall raise. I also welcome my hon. Friends the Members for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), who is well known for his expertise in agricultural matters, and for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) who, as the Conservative Chairman of the Environment Committee, is an expert in planning and other matters. I thank the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Farmers Union, Strutt and Parker, the well-known surveyors, and the South Hams Society, among others, for writing to me with their views on this debate.
The nature of the problem is that, with the temporary exception of sheep, all agricultural produce is in surplus. Advances in technology, bio-engineering and veterinary science have resulted in an enormous speeding up of production, more crops, more milk and bigger and better animals. We can produce more than ever before on less and less land. The parallel is, perhaps, with the microchip. More energy is being created in smaller and smaller spaces.
In just 13 years— in the year 2000— according to John North, an agricultural expert at Cambridge, the current levels of agricultural production can be maintained but using 10 million acres less land. Even allowing for the current take-up rate of land, which is about 15 per cent. a year in new forests and woodlands, Mr. North estimates that in 13 years there will be a net surplus of 8·25 million acres of vacant land which was formerly used for agriculture. In geographical terms, that is equivalent to four times the area of the entire county of Devon. That land will be redundant for agricultural use in 13 years' time. Put another way, 35,000 productive agricultural holdings currently in use will become surplus to requirements. That means 65,000 farmers and agricultural workers, presently employed on the land, becoming redundant by the year 2000. Of course, there is a knock-on effect.
The countryside is more than a food factory. A farmer is not just a food producer but part of the rural economy and rural society. For that reason, the Government must make preparations. Just as Joseph caused Pharaoh to make provision for the lean years during the years of plenty, so, too, must we plan how to restrict our food growth before we find that it is too late. We must also plan what we must do with the land saved.
Never before in our history has this situation existed. Successive Governments have told farmers to produce

more and more. Now there is so much food in surplus that the EEC spends $203 million a week on food storage, subsidy and destruction. The surpluses are fast getting worse. The ever-growing food surplus is adding approximately $13 a week to every household food bill. It is no good telling farmers that they should be grateful for EEC subsidies. Few farmers make fortunes, and most just manage to make a living. The land, which was their most important and valuable asset, is beginning to waste away.
The Government's Alternative Land Use and Rural Economy Committee rightly recognised the problem. The announcement two weeks ago attempted to suggest ways in which alternative sources of income for farmers could be provided. But will they? To what extent can the Government make up the shortfall that is lost by quotas? If the proposals are supposed to cope with the effect of reduced farm incomes from a small milk quota, what must the Government do when quotas hit every foodstuff—not just milk—and not just by 10 per cent. or 13 per cent., but by 50 per cent?
What will the countryside look like? What will Britain look like from the air, from a road, or from a train? The answer is intimately connected with what the Government will do to help farmers. The key to land use is how farms will be kept viable. How will farmers be kept solvent?
The countryside could remain largely as it looks today. There is no reason why it should not, provided a different system of subsidy is created by the European Community. If the Commission said to farmers, "Look, we shall pay you a good sum of money, and all you need to do is to mow your fields, but please do not produce any food," it would solve the problem. But at what cost? Another approach could be to pay off the 35,000 agricultural holdings which will be surplus to requirements and make redundant the 65,000 farmers and agricultural workers. But what would happen to the land if that were done? Who would look after and tend it? What would it look like?
The Government's draft circular suggested ways of switching land use to provide farmers with alternative wealth creation, but forestry will be no panacea for the problem of over-production. It is cheaper to import timber than to grow it domestically. Of course, it takes many years to grow trees. We can limit the number of forests, but can we limit the number of golf courses—that is another of the Government's proposals—and camping sites? Does the Minister suggest that a dramatic growth in the number of golf courses will solve the problems facing our farmers? The only way to create golf courses is to build at least 50 houses around the proposed sites to pay for their construction. Is that what my hon. Friend the Minister has in mind?
Will the courts sentence young offenders to so many hours on the golf course rather than to so many hours of community service? Camping and caravanning require plenty of time, leisure and money. Do the Government intend to reduce the retirement age and, instead of the 10 Christmas bonus, provide a free tent? Is the landscape to change from wheat fields to caravan parks? Are areas of outstanding natural beauty to be covered with tents? That would not, however, make up the farmers' shortfall or loss of income from agriculture.
Are we to see marginal land, especially on the urban fringe, covered with line after line of houses? What will happen to the 300,000 acres of dormant, derelict land in public ownership in the inner cities? Will it just be ignored?


These are very real planning problems. With the issue of these two circulars the Government have embarked on a very dangerous and difficult journey.
What is to be done about land use and land surpluses? Farmers must have an alternative use for their land and buildings to supplement their incomes, but what will the landscape look like as a result? There will be a direct connection between the extent to which the Government subsidise unproductive farms and the new look of the countryside. The extent to which the Government permit new development on land formerly used for agriculture and how that is spelt out to planning authorities is crucial. Planners have a habit of doing their own thing. Liverpool, for example, could hardly have looked worse if there had been no planners.
Despite every conceivable designation to protect the environment, the planners will be recommending to a district council in south Devon next Tuesday that a 90-van caravan site be approved in one of the 36 areas of outstanding natural beauty in this country— itself on one of the 39 heritage coasts and in an area of great landscape value. The Government may despair of planners and councils and say that it is not the Government's fault. But it is for the Government to spell out exactly what is permitted and what they will encourage and to tell their inspectors, on appeal, what they will not have.
The better use of redundant farm buildings by small business enterprises and starter workshops would help to augment farmers' incomes. The Government must be far more liberal in their planning regime with regard to the use of redundant buildings. All those who cherish the unique qualities of the English countryside have a duty to involve themselves in the debate. The Government's responsibility is to protect our heritage and countryside. But the farmers must not be abandoned in their hour of need, nor should we delude ourselves that golf courses, a clump of trees here and there, a nature trail, or a caravan park will solve the problem. It will not. A long-term strategy is needed to protect the finest parts of our environment from the threat of tasteless development and the ruination of this green and pleasant land.
The conflict is between pensioning off the farmers—making some of them into museum pieces, subsidising them to keep their fields neat and tidy, bringing in busloads of tourists to visit a genuine English farm, meeting the farmer with his slippers and pipe— and exploiting the rapidly growing land bank so as to augment the farmers' depleted income and put off the evil day when 60,000 farmers will have to be made redundant. It is an entirely new problem. I do not pretend to have a solution, but I can air the grievance and point out the dangers which, if not sympathetically handled by the Government, could cause loss of support among a wide cross-section of people— farmers and farm-related people— who are dedicated to the preservation and conservation of our environment and the national parks.
It is strange tht we should be raising this critical matter so late on a Wednesday night, but I believe that our countryside is at risk. The whole nation looks to my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government to find a solution to this inolerably difficult problem.

Sir Peter Mills: rose—

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I see two hon. Members rising. Do they have the consent of the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and of the Minister to take part in the debate?

Mr. Steen: indicated assent.

The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): indicated assent.

Sir Peter Mills: I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) for raising this important subject in the House.
We should consider three points. In making plans for diversification or new policies for agiculture or land use, we have to remember that farming is a business. It is not there just for other people's pleasure. We have to consider the bank manager, the returns on investment and the support of the farmer's family. It is too easy for some people to forget those. Many people would be horrified if farmers said to them that their businesses shoud be treated simply as things of beauty or as places for recreation. It is important in all these matters to get the right balance. Excessive movement one way or the other is not the way forward. We must remember that farming is a business.
Secondly, farmers and others must beware of what I call false trails. My advice to farmers is to stick to what they know best and to introduce alternatives gradually by planting up a few acres, growing new crops or doing some of the other things that the Government have suggested. We have to consider what is needed, grow it well and, above all, see that it is marketed properly.
Thirdly, as my hon. Friend said, this is a difficult time for farmers and the rural scene. We must allow farmers to use old buildings and, indeed, the whole group of buildings which are no longer necessary for the modern farming that they practise. Rural industries can be developed tastefully in those buildings. We must set up industries to help rural people to live and work in their own villages. I say this not unkindly because I am about to become a retired person. A village is not just for retired people; it is for people to work in. Let us stop the continual drift into the towns. The measures that the Government have suggested will help. They are only a start. Much more needs to be done. I hope that on all sides those who wish to conserve the rural areas, the farmers and the politicians will take a balanced view of all these matters and move forward together. As my hon. Friend said, I believe that we are at the beginning of a period of great change in the rural scene.

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) for allowing me to speak. I shall take up just one point that he made, the third point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills)— the use of redundant agricultural buildings. Reference has been made to the flexibility that should apply to the use of these buildings for the benefit of rural industries.
I believe that the Department is considering the long overdue revision of the use classes order which was introduced in 1972. There are 10 use classes ranging from very heavy industry to very light industry and to warehousing and servicing. In the 15 intervening years the changes in industry, with the decline of the manufacturing base and the rise of service industries, have made the revision of the use classes order necessary.
When it comes to the alternative use of redundant farm buildings in the context of the revision of the use classes order, I must put to the Minister my fear that sweeping away classes 1 to 10, and making it easier for buildings to be converted for use by heavy industry to light industry and vice versa, will allow an unwelcome free for all in the use of some agricultural buildings and could herald the introduction of heavier and intrusive industry into village communities. That is my concern, coupled with my belief that the revision of the use classes order is absolutely necessary.
I look forward to my hon. Friend's comments on the matter, if not tonight, perhaps by correspondence later.

12 midnight

The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has done the House a service by giving us the first opportunity to discuss this topic. I gather that there was some discussion following the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Unfortunately, I was ill in bed at the time and therefore I am grateful for this opportunity to join in discussions, belatedly, on this matter.
If I may make a physical comment about my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams, he is slim and far from the fat boy in the famous novel by Dickens. However, just like that fat boy, my hon. Friend did try to make my flesh creep tonight as he reminded us of a whole range of catastrophes that may occur if the Government get everything wrong. My hon. Friend was correct when he said it is no good for us to pretend that an historically important and, in many respects, irreversible shift is not under way regarding the contribution of agriculture to rural employment. The response of the Government and local authorities to planning applications is also important. It is no good for us to believe that we can bury our heads in the sand and that things can go on as before.
We must get that point across to people. I hope that we do not concentrate too much on the disasters that may befall us, because change is inevitable. If we remain shivering on the brink and do not strike out with policy initiatives— even though each policy carries risks— events will take their course and we shall be swept aside. As a result, the outcome may be worse than if the Government had adopted the proposed policies. I am sure that my hon. Friend was not urging the Government to be so terrified of the possible mistakes that we do not enter the game as a player. It would be a grave dereliction of the Government's duty to the rural communities if we did not rise to the events.

Mr. Steen: I was not suggesting that the Government should do nothing, but whatever the Government do they should make it clear that the planners and the politicians at the local level understand the Government's intentions. It is even more important that the inspectors within the Minister's Department do not have misapprehensions about the Government's policies.

Mr. Waldegrave: That brings me on to the second point that I wish to make. I do not believe that anywhere in the United Kingdom, even within the walls of the Department

of the Environment, where is to be found much wisdom, anybody knows what the British countryside and the structure of the rural economy will be as a result of the great transition period. We must go step by step and not try to lay down a blueprint that may be swept away.
The impetus for change, as always, must come from the people at the bottom. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir P. Mills) that one of the great groups of players in the transition, the farmers and the others in agriculture, should not think that their historic role is finished and that they must try to become something different.
We must take steps to widen the base of the rural economy and various inputs to that economy are important. One is the planning system— I shall come back to that shortly in relation to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) and the initial comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams but other Government agencies are involved. Some are directly responsible to the Minister of Agriculture, such as the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. Other agencies include the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, which is responsible to my Department, and the Small Business Services of the Department of Employment. In some of our west country areas there is a crucial player on the board—the tourist authorities and tourist boards—but above all there is private and individual ingenuity and hard work. We shall not be able to predict the outcome. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams is right to make my flesh creep. We can see some of the things that can go wrong. We must try to guard against them.
I should like to make a few comments about the planning aspect of the package that was announced the week before last. I thoroughly agree with what my hon. Friend the the Member for Torridge and Devon, West said. What we have announced so far is not the end of the matter; it is hardly the beginning. We are beginning to fit pieces into the jigsaw puzzle. We are beginning to see some of the things that need to be done. This is the beginning of the turning round, of a great shift, which will need much more effort right across Government to see that we get it right in the years ahead. It did not start just a couple of weeks ago.
There have been some things that we have done, which are right, over the past couple of years. An example is the first circular, on the critical point referred to by all three of my hon. Friends— the Members for Torridge and Devon, West, for South Hams and for Mid-Staffordshire. The sensitive conversion of redundant farm buildings is crucial to the provision of income for the farmers who so often are the leaders of the local business community, as well as the provision of jobs, particularly semi-skilled and craft jobs in the rural communities. We are still not getting that message across to many district councils, but when we published the first circular a year ago we took a deep breath and said, "even in green belts." Normally that would bring the roof down about our ears. Even a mention of green belts would do that. But that did not happen this time. We were supported by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and hon. Members who are sensitive on green belt matters, and rightly so. We said that even in green belts we must have sensible reuse of buildings. It is to nobody's advantage, environmentally or in any other sense, to have derelict buildings that could be used to create real jobs in the villages. How I agreed with


my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West when he said that we must not let the villages become just retirement homes or dormitory areas for the local economic centre somewhere else.
Some powerful trends are running our way. If we can use them correctly, they will give us some of the muscle power with which we can get all this right. The most recent census showed that for the first time perhaps for half a century or more the population of the rural areas, except in the remotest areas, is recovering; it is increasing. That is not just because of retirement homes and so on, although that is part of it. It is also because some of the trends in modern technology are running in our direction. One does not now have to work in a great warehouse of people in a city to conduct a wide range of what traditionally would have been office-based jobs, because of the techniques of modern information technology. I know people who, with their telex machine in their front hall in the country, are running good little businesses, which, once upon a time, would have been inconceivable except in the town.
One should look at what the Development Commission and English Estates can describe in the range of activities that their efforts can produce in the rural areas. There is a capacity to spread the economic base away from great concerted centres, which is one of the great hopes for the maintenance of the small towns and villages. I can see it well in those in Somerset, which I know well from my family background.
Let me be clear about what the new planning circular did. It was a marginal change. It is correct. Even those who were anxious about it to start with are coming round to see that it is correct. It said that when we look at applications for development in the countryside in future, we should, as we always have done, do the difficult balancing of environment versus development, with agriculture in the agriculturally important areas still a material consideration. We have retained protection for the best land, which is a national resource, like mineral resources and so on.
When the district council has come to the conclusion that a development is right, and is needed in a particular area, the extra bias of the steer is now not necessarily away from the most productive agricultural land. The fields of rye grass which sadly, have lost their ecological and environmental interest, may be the right place to put the development for the local community. Those fields may be of less overall interest in social terms than the agriculturally scruffy piece of land that may be full of

heath fritillaries and so on. It seems to create the right balance to put environment and agriculture and development alongside each other. That will not make decisions any easier—they will often be agonising—but we must not give that final push and say, "I am afraid this is highly productive land, so this is out of it; you have to go down the road where it is only old gorse bushes." Sir Derek Barber, the chairman of the Countryside Commission, was right to say last week that he knows of developments which have gone like that, where we have lost environmentally and ecologically interesting things because we were still following the agricultural production imperative in a way which we have to admit now was out of date.
This can be of some help to those farmers in terms of looking at environmentally sound developments which are non-farming developments. Development includes all kind of things other than building bricks and mortar, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams rightly said. He was slightly scathing about golf courses. The CLA was making a little joke when it said that 20,000 golf coursess would solve the problem. I do not think that the economics of golf courses work on that basis. However, there is a range of recreational and other uses for land which can be sensible environmentally. An interesting study was carried out by one of the London environmental trustees which showed, encouragingly, how many of the golf courses around London had done good work in preserving the ecological land that they had used. Golf courses cart be environmentally satisfactory, and so can a range of recreational functions, which can provide local jobs and pleasure to local people and visitors.
Some of the hostility to development in recent years has been because of the constraints which have been put on those developments and which have made them shoddy, over-dense and unsatisfactory in terms of the way that they fitted in with settlements. Perhaps a little more land taken to give people slightly bigger gardens, a little better landscaping and perhaps some more trees would have saved the hostility that people felt to so many new developments that have fitted, in a rather urban way into the sides of the small towns and villages and created this great hostility—

The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.